Read on Twitter
If you find @MicrobiomDigest's spot the duplication challenges a bit tooooo challenging, I'll give you an easy one. See if you can spot the batshit crazy in this table 1, which is supposedly describing a nationally representative sample.
What I find most shocking is that there is zero discussion of these figures in the paper. They LEAP off the page. I just can't for the life of me come up with anything even approaching a plausible explanation for these splits.
And then you see all these sycophantic tweets from other docs that just remind you how little some research active people actually understand.
And if you point this stuff out, the response is to write the journal editor. https://twitter.com/BrennanSpiegel/status/1280719148826234888
But he's the ******* editor!
And instead of pausing for a second to consider the possible limitations of the "study", hell no we are making info sheets for patients... https://twitter.com/BrennanSpiegel/status/1280978994087653377
And patting ourselves on the back because the study was covered in TIME magazine. https://twitter.com/BrennanSpiegel/status/1280535059447988224
And why don't they know or care that THESE DATA CANNOT BE REAL!
