Thanks for following up last week’s discussion about the first paper. It’s pretty sad that it falls on internet sleuths to debunk claims that should be obviously questionable after thinking for two seconds about the underlying scientific principles, but so it goes. This study should have been flagged immediately by a competent peer review process.
On a personal level though, I’m thankful I’ve been able to improve at noticing such claims myself, thanks in large part to things I’ve learned here.
Thanks for following up last week’s discussion about the first paper. It’s pretty sad that it falls on internet sleuths to debunk claims that should be obviously questionable after thinking for two seconds about the underlying scientific principles, but so it goes. This study should have been flagged immediately by a competent peer review process.
On a personal level though, I’m thankful I’ve been able to improve at noticing such claims myself, thanks in large part to things I’ve learned here.