Virtually every study you find online is published before any peer-review happens. This includes virtually every study that you, yourself, posted. This is normal. So, ya, it’s stupid when your criticism of a study that you don’t like the results of is that it’s not peer-reviewed.
That’s not the stupidest part, though. An actual intelligent response to s study that you don’t agree with is to criticize, perhaps, methods or biases among other things. When your criticism is that it’s not peer-reviewed and, so, implying that the study is worthless because of that, it’s a sign of your lack of intelligence. Stupid.
it’s stupid when your criticism of a study that you don’t like the results of is that it’s not peer-reviewed.
Folks I guess she missed the part where the study itself says "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full#T2
An actual intelligent response to s study that you don’t agree with is to criticize, perhaps, methods or biases among other things
As if there's anyone in this social media site that's qualified.
So what we've got here is a science paper that says "Don't act on this until it has been peer reviewed" and a bunch of non-experts - like ScoobyDoo here - saying "Don't pay any attention to that part."
It's up to you who you think you should listen to.
I guess she missed the part where the study itself says "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."
No i didn't. You're comments are getting even more stupid.
FYI because you don't know - Peer review is a method for the scientific community to reach a consensus. One peer-review of a particular study that does not replicate the results of the original study does not invalidate the study. The methods in the peer-reviewed study could also be flawed.
But again, you didn't like the results of this study. You're unable to criticize it, so you resort to "not peer-reviewed." This is a low-level intelligence criticism.
ScoobyDoo here - saying "Don't pay any attention to that part."
Wrong again. I never said that. But it's also weird that you're pointing out normal disclosure that any proper study will include, as if to imply that this makes it a bad study.
Certainly a stupid answer.
It’s not. I enjoy pointing out your stupidity.
Virtually every study you find online is published before any peer-review happens. This includes virtually every study that you, yourself, posted. This is normal. So, ya, it’s stupid when your criticism of a study that you don’t like the results of is that it’s not peer-reviewed.
That’s not the stupidest part, though. An actual intelligent response to s study that you don’t agree with is to criticize, perhaps, methods or biases among other things. When your criticism is that it’s not peer-reviewed and, so, implying that the study is worthless because of that, it’s a sign of your lack of intelligence. Stupid.
Folks I guess she missed the part where the study itself says "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full#T2
As if there's anyone in this social media site that's qualified.
So what we've got here is a science paper that says "Don't act on this until it has been peer reviewed" and a bunch of non-experts - like ScoobyDoo here - saying "Don't pay any attention to that part."
It's up to you who you think you should listen to.
No i didn't. You're comments are getting even more stupid.
FYI because you don't know - Peer review is a method for the scientific community to reach a consensus. One peer-review of a particular study that does not replicate the results of the original study does not invalidate the study. The methods in the peer-reviewed study could also be flawed.
But again, you didn't like the results of this study. You're unable to criticize it, so you resort to "not peer-reviewed." This is a low-level intelligence criticism.
Wrong again. I never said that. But it's also weird that you're pointing out normal disclosure that any proper study will include, as if to imply that this makes it a bad study.
Exactly.
And until that consensus is reached the study "should not be used to guide clinical practice".