Sincere kudos to the editors of the American Journal of Gastroenterology for publishing our letter (with @timpmorris.bsky.socialjournals.lww.com/ajg/citation...
Ludicrous. Also, an equalities issue. A large proportion of adults who still use nicotine are self-medicating for conditions like ADHD. Policy should always be designed and implemented to make vaping the easiest option for those who will use nicotine regardless. Smoking is lethal, nicotine isn't.
Research shows vapes attract more regulation than tobacco. Public health advocates says vaping now seems to attract more regulation than smoking. Professor Richard Edwards spoke to Ingrid Hipkiss on Morning Report. www.rnz.co.nz/national/pro...
Public health advocates says vaping now seems to attract more regulation than smoking. Professor Richard Edwards spoke to Ingrid Hipkiss.
The quote is from Altman's classic: www.bmj.com/content/308/...blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2014/01/...ictmc.org/wp-content/u...www.jstor.org/stable/29835...
I dunno what’s going on with the open science industrial complex, but I do know that preregistration makes planning new studies so much more thoughtful, and as a PI of a biggish lab I’m thankful for that.
Random question - has anyone ever done a formal investigation into publication bias in rodent studies? I always wonder how many lab-bench mouse studies are unpublished because they didn't find that some chemical caused more tumors. Is there a realistic estimate of this number?
I didn't read this initially because I thought this was about the guy who was caught a couple of years ago manipulating images in hundreds of papers, but nope, this one is much bigger. And of course @elisabethbik.bsky.social helped catch both with her forensic skills. 🧪🧫🔬
Findings of scientific misconduct on a monumental scale by a prominent Alzheimer's researcher www.science.org/content/arti...
Agency announces research misconduct finding for neuroscientist Eliezer Masliah as scores of his papers fall under suspicion
lshtm.cloud.panopto.eu/Panopto/Page... if you're up for an hour of video (in two topic chunks)... Very accessible for anyone interested in comparative trials in any field. Clinical trialists have been doing it for longer, with more money, than any other field. We're getting pretty good at it...
Probably, yes? Any irony intended was not at all obvious, in the context of some gleeful but unwarranted extrapolation.
No. A group failing to think it through properly does not make the principle somehow wrong. You cannot test a hypothesis on the data that generated it. If you say you're testing, it must be pre-specified. If you generated it, say so and discuss whether it's useful enough to go ahead and test it.
There's no conflict between good science & creativity. If you tested a hypothesis, show us where you pre-specified it. If you generated a hypothesis, say that & discuss whether it justifies the resource required for a prospective test. Sound science does not involve kidding yourself, or anyone else.