I guess she missed the part where the study itself says "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed.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 You're unable to criticize it, so you resort to "not peer-reviewed."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.
V&C1 appears again folks! Blessing us with another display of her powerful reasoning skills. We should all feel lucky to see this superb intellect operating at the height of its persuasive powers.
And until that consensus is reached the study "should not be used to guide clinical practice".
Every study that you posted that does not explicitly say that it was peer-reviewed was the original study and not peer-reviewed. And, yes, criticizing a study because it is not peer-reviewed is a low-intelligence criticism.
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 You're unable to criticize it, so you resort to "not peer-reviewed."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".
The fat boomer endorses
The fat boomer relies on
The fat boomer wants
The fat boomer only wants
V&C1 appears again folks! Blessing us with another display of her powerful reasoning skills. We should all feel lucky to see this superb intellect operating at the height of its persuasive powers.
Every study that you posted that does not explicitly say that it was peer-reviewed was the original study and not peer-reviewed. And, yes, criticizing a study because it is not peer-reviewed is a low-intelligence criticism.
In your dreams.
https://libanswers.unm.edu/faq/162384
https://guides.library.oregonstate.edu/c.php?g=285842&p=1906145
Pointing out that a study warns against immediately using its findings is not a criticism. It's a quote.
your links here confirm everything that i just told you.