![]() This omission of evident information can only be due to one of two reasons: either the authors voluntarily chose to misrepresent their results, or they failed to adequately follow through with their methodology. ‘The effects of moderate, regular alcohol consumption’). Despite Éduc’alcool’s website having a webpage and a publication entirely dedicated to heart health, 2 the authors chose to use a webpage with an older publication date and addressing a wider range of topics (i.e. Their article reads ‘Where a website had multiple (>3) webpages with a health information basis, the most relevant page(s) was used for the analysis (based on CVD focus and publication date)’ (page 2). Petticrew’s research team strikes again 1: cherry-picking information and trying to pass it as a valid scientific method.įor starters, the authors clearly did not follow through with what their methods section claims.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |