I guess she missed the part where the study itself says "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed.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 You're unable to criticize it, so you resort to "not peer-reviewed."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.

I guess she missed the part where the study itself says "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed.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 You're unable to criticize it, so you resort to "not peer-reviewed."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.