Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet. In April 2015 he wrote an editorial (“Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”) after attending a symposium on research reliability, where he argued much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue, afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, along with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance.
Horton isn’t the only major figure who’s said something similar — John Ioannidis (Stanford) made a related, more rigorous argument in his famous 2005 paper “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” and Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, has made comparable claims about clinical research specifically.
"Fauci had four dozen chances Wednesday to say something equally modest. He took the Fifth instead."
So what are we going to DO about it? I want this man legally/properly held to account!
Four dozen? Nope. One hundred and eleven times.
Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet. In April 2015 he wrote an editorial (“Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”) after attending a symposium on research reliability, where he argued much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue, afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, along with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance.
Horton isn’t the only major figure who’s said something similar — John Ioannidis (Stanford) made a related, more rigorous argument in his famous 2005 paper “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” and Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, has made comparable claims about clinical research specifically.