You can find more of my sciences lessons at Patreon
My Patreon page is here. For just $1/month you can have access to that content and be able to participate in discussions. The modest donations help support the content here too.
And thanks again to those of you who have already done this.
- Sunday Science Lesson: How are deaths counted (for pandemics, smoking, etc.)?
- Can smoking protect you against COVID-19?
- New Glover-Phillips paper: “Potential effects of using non-combustible tobacco and nicotine products during pregnancy: a systematic review”
- “Dependence” and the danger of adopting the language of your oppressors
- The folly of federalism for vaping (etc.) policy
Carl V Phillips on Sunday Science Lesson: How are… Roberto Sussman on Sunday Science Lesson: How are… michaeljmcfadden on Sunday Science Lesson: How are… Dan Heck on Can smoking protect you agains… Claudia on Can smoking protect you agains…
Follow this blogYou can subscribe using one of the usual methods. Posts will be announced in the primary author's Twitter: @carlvphillips.
Tags"no evidence" "passive vaping" 95% ACS addiction AHA ALA ANR ASH-UK Bates big picture biomarkers Burstyn carcinogens CDC censorship chemicals chiiiildren citations classic COI comparative risk conjunction CTFK demonic possession Dutra economics Ellen Hahn environmental vapor ERS ethics EU FCTC FDA fundamental lies gateway Glantz Gratziou gutka Hecht innumeracy Kelvin Choi Legacy logic meta-analysis motives MRTP non sequitur NRT NYTimes outsource particulates peer review policy recommendations Popova press release RCTs second-order preferences self policing Siegel statistiLie ST variants Swedish Match toxicology trANTZlator Trump parallels UAthens UBath UCSF UKY UMN US govt vapor chemistry WHO why anti-THR?
Search Results for: what is peer review really
by Carl V Phillips I haven’t done a Sunday Science Lesson in a while, and have not added to this series about peer review for more than two years, so here goes. (What, you thought that just because I halted … Continue reading
by Carl V Phillips A few months ago, Borderud, Li, Burkhalter, Sheffer, and Ostroff, from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center published a paper in the peer-reviewed journal, Cancer, that they claimed showed that using e-cigarettes did not help — and indeed hindered … Continue reading
by Carl V Phillips A couple of weeks ago, a funny story came out about a peer-reviewed journal accepting a “paper” which consists of nothing but the message (in the title, repeated in the text for pages, and in two figures), “Get me … Continue reading
by Carl V Phillips I thought it would be worth taking this series non-linear to follow up on Part 4, which used the recent Popova-Ling “peer-reviewed journal article” as a case-study to illustrate much of what is wrong with journal … Continue reading
by Carl V Phillips A quick finish to the theme I was working on in the last post in the series, before moving on to a definitive example of the failure of journal peer review in public health. Recall from … Continue reading
by Carl V Phillips Returning to this series, I previously explored Myth 1, that peer reviewers have access to more information than any other reader of the paper. On to Myth 2 (and, again, the order of this presentation is … Continue reading
by Carl V. Phillips [Update: I have submitted a comment to BMC Public Health that is based on this post. My copy of it can be viewed here.] [Update: The comment has now been accepted by the journal and appears, … Continue reading