Over the course of the last couple of years the way I read scientific papers has changed. I used to read the abstract, get juiced up, and dive into the details of the paper. I now read the abstract, cognisant of bias, then immediately look at the author bios and funding sources! Very good summary Kevin and the fact they don’t cite Chen et al is a genuine smoking gun. It’d be like coming up with a new theory on gravity but comprehensively failing to cite any work by Einstein!!
Most of the paper way above my level of technical understanding, but you still managed to make a complicated subject not only logical, and interesting, but also light, exciting and, dare I say it, entertaining. A joy to read. Thank you.
At this stage of the Pandemic Saga I’m drawn more and more to this kind of granular analysis of the nuts and bolts, rather than sweeping generalised opinion pieces. Ultimately you have to follow the evidence trail.
Over the course of the last couple of years the way I read scientific papers has changed. I used to read the abstract, get juiced up, and dive into the details of the paper. I now read the abstract, cognisant of bias, then immediately look at the author bios and funding sources! Very good summary Kevin and the fact they don’t cite Chen et al is a genuine smoking gun. It’d be like coming up with a new theory on gravity but comprehensively failing to cite any work by Einstein!!
Most of the paper way above my level of technical understanding, but you still managed to make a complicated subject not only logical, and interesting, but also light, exciting and, dare I say it, entertaining. A joy to read. Thank you.
At this stage of the Pandemic Saga I’m drawn more and more to this kind of granular analysis of the nuts and bolts, rather than sweeping generalised opinion pieces. Ultimately you have to follow the evidence trail.