> about as well done of a study as we could ask for from a non-academic research level
Unfortunately, there's a good reason why academics use proper experimental design. Without it, all you really have is suggestive noise, if even that.
Unfortunately, there's a good reason why academics use proper experimental design. Without it, all you really have is suggestive noise, if even that.
Low standard has higher odds than no standard of evidence or no research at all. High > low > zero. By what logic could you claim that low = zero or zero > low?
But all else is not equal. The pressure to publish something interesting, even if false, greatly outweighs the incentive to be accurate, and overwhelms whatever filter the low standard might provide.
Even the author of this article acknowledges the problem:
> When I write a paper, I have to deal with co-authors who push for putting in false or misleading material that makes the paper look good and my ability to push back against this has been fairly limited.
To their credit, the author makes some effort to point out the flaws in this study, and acknowledges that this is just "a preliminary result that is, at best, weak evidence."
That's a start, but obviously not as good as actually putting in the work to correct those flaws.