It may be a crappy study...

[taiwan_girl]

I agree. If it is a valid study, it should be published.

But, i would be curious how many other studies are published in the same magazine before they "had undergone any part of the peer review process"

[Jolly]

Not uncommon.

[Axtremus]

@Jolly said in It may be a crappy study...:

But let them publish it and then tear it apart...

That’s what self-publishing is for. Put whatever you want on the Internet, given enough time someone (or some bot) will come tear it apart eventually. But that’s not what peer reviewed journals do — if you want to claim that your work has been peer reviewed, you have to pass peer review before you publish.

[Jolly]

Lad, there is a section of the pre-print journal where unreviewed studies are routinely posted.

Routinely.

This one was taken down in 24 hours.

[George K]

A thread looking at McCullough's study:

In a nutshell:

1. One author misrepresented his qualifications and academic affiliations

2. 80 studies excluded without explanation - could drastically change conclusions.

3. Retracted paper cited in references.

4. No discussion of limitations (SOP for a scientific article)

5. Affiliations with sketchy companies which sell supplements purported to "block vaccine shedding" and vaccine "injury."

[Doctor Phibes]

Sometimes a turd is just a turd.

[Mik]

It strikes me as odd that so many Trump folks are dissing the vaccines. It was his greatest triumph.

[Jolly]

@Doctor-Phibes said in It may be a crappy study...:

Sometimes a turd is just a turd.

No argument.

But leave it where it was and folks throw crap at it.

[George K]

@Jolly said in It may be a crappy study...:

But leave it where it was and folks throw crap at it.

No.

(Reputable) journals have a process whereby something gets published. They have standards which must be met. If they are not, they don't get published.

In today's digital world, any asshat can "submit" a paper for publication to BMJ, NEJM, JAMA or Lancet. To call it "pre-publication" is dishonest. IMO, the whole "pre-pub" thing is questionable.

Submit, let the editors review suitability, and then publish - digitally and on paper.

[Doctor Phibes]

It's also hard to argue that we need more crap out there, not less. Do we really want the Lancet to turn into The Epoch Times?