>"Digging into the site, you're immediately hit with this error. That's not how p-values work at all, any stats textbook will show you why this statement is entirely untrue"
then I cannot explain this observation in this debate with the author of https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111...
>This interview left me with a variety of thoughts which I haven’t managed to collate – but here are some impressions. Dr. Garegnani didn’t seem anywhere near as well informed on the subject as Kory – and although we shouldn’t judge a scientific discussion as a boxing match, in my opinion Garegnani seemed to be completely outclassed and out of his depth. More significant though was a deeper difference between the two which I find difficult to describe – I’m tempted to call it a generation gap, or a mismatch of values and priorities. Garegnani seemed to view the topic purely as a question of theory and methodology (although to be fair that may be his speciality), and appeared unmoved even after numerous compelling points made by Kory. In contrast, Kory appears much more pragmatic, much more experienced and well-informed, and more passionate about saving lives. Of course these differences do not necessarily prove one position to be correct, but I’ll let you judge this conversation for yourself.
https://darryllrbetts.wordpress.com/2021/07/19/dr-pierre-kor...
The actual debate..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCpiHHG0R2k
So the question is, if there are so many errors as purported by these cherry-picked twitter allegations, what are people not putting them forward in an actual debate..