1/ It was eventually retracted, as we pointed out with @LDjaparidze the logic was flawed BUT retraction should only be used for misconduct or requested by the authors themselves. mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/…
2/ Peer review is broken since earlier than SARS-Cov-2 and review board should be accountable because they allowed it to pass review for publication. In a sense this retraction is not authors fault, but the whole editorial board. ALL OF THEM.
3/ The reason why retraction is not the tools is that sometimes even bad papers provide good data. When a retraction is stamped into it, the data collected even if poorly interpreted gets destroyed. Bad paper, data pointing to new science. One example:
https://twitter.com/federicolois/status/1358170634107424771
4/ Following this logic I count at a minimum 20 mask studies that made worse things and fit for retraction. Let's start with the prime example the European CDC mask study. 2 serious flaws, like for example misrepresenting their own evidence under analysis.
https://twitter.com/federicolois/status/1366448000688680967
5/ If you though that was bad, let's not say that they didn't publish a table that is critical to evaluate their results.
You know what's the difference? Nobody rage quit for it because it doesn't challenge the narrative.
https://twitter.com/federicolois/status/1366450669893337091
You know what's the difference? Nobody rage quit for it because it doesn't challenge the narrative.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
