Thread by @ProfDFrancis

Elisabeth Bik is a VERY hard woman. I thought she was outing these for "A" and "C" not being differently treated rats, different _slides_, but actually the same slide flipped upside down.

I thought B was actually different.

But then...

https://twitter.com/MicrobiomDigest/status/1327760135314259968

.... I saw this too

Remember, do not mock basic science papers for having this level of fakery.

Praise them for outing themselves in this way.

They show that when a scientist says the average amount of RED or GREEN or WHITE differs between different treatments, they may have just been marking different "regions of interest" on the same slide!

In clinical research we do not show our raw data.

If I drew round different parts of the heart to measure T3 or T4*, and then claimed that disease X, or post disease X syndrome was different from a control group, you would have NO chance to spot my cheekiness.

These cases of self-destructing basic science papers are a reason to be EVEN MORE fearful of clinical research papers.

So watch @DrJHoward's AHA presentation of SAMSON today with great care. He purports to show individual patient data, but are they all different?

Build up your skills in clinical trial result interpretation through this course in simple 15-minute seminars!

Still available free:

tweetorials.inspirion.org/h2/2e0014e2e8b…