Hacker News Reader

Right, but that’s because you’re misreading the table. They are deriving moderate quality conclusions from moderate quality data, as I’ve explained.

View on HN

Looks like we are in disagreement about who is misreading the table.

Well, good luck sustaining the claim that Lee Hooper doesn’t know how to perform a meta analysis and that error got past Cochrane’s notoriously lax peer review process, and you definitely didn’t just make a mistake reading the table.

I salute your self confidence, I must say I’m somewhat envious of it.

I have low opinion about modern academia and quality of "peer review processes".

If you misread data in the way you appear to, that doesn’t surprise me. I can’t imagine you think many studies’ conclusions appear to follow from their results.

It’s just that you’re blaming the studies, rather than your comprehension.

Again, we are in disagreement who misread the data.

Honestly, your steadfast insistence that you couldn’t possibly be wrong on this is fascinating to me. I’m happy to admit I made a mistake if I’m misreading the data, so walk me through what you think I’m getting wrong.

Please be specific: name the event subtypes you’re looking at, give specific references to the table numbers etc. If I’m wrong about this, I want to know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com