Thread by @tylerblack32

This is a meta-analysis of the longitudinal studies done during the first months of the pandemic. It is a *systematic* review in which they methodically went through ALL the research they could find.

/1

Here are the results they reported from their systematic review.

/2

My frustration is that this is how science is performed, yet major organizations that know better are simply selecting the points they want. I have no doubt that they would cite "evidence of an increase" but ignore the rest of this metaanalysis.

/3

The way that i have seen some articles cited... its bad.
I will be calling it out over the course of the next week. Major provincial & Canadian organizations have simply SELECTIVELY CITED and SELECTIVELY REPORTED data that doesn't even say what their citation says it does.

/4

Some of it is INCREDIBLY egregious. And I mean, awfully awfully bad.

Science is NOT performed by selecting the data we want. It's performed using a system to collect data and using the data to form our opinion.

/5

When i cite this metaanalysis, i actually state what it found. There was a small increase in symptoms. Most symptoms returned to baseline. Depressive symptoms and those with poor physical health did the worst, but overall, there was reassuring news.

/6

I've seen far too many cite evidence like this with unhelpful and unnunaced summaries like (not quoting, an example to illustrate): "Robinson et al showed an increase in depression during the pandemic."

/7

The scientific review process only works when people cite other science honestly and accurately.

Link to the article:
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…