Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
These discussions display a generally cautious stance toward the reliability of scientific research, with many citing Ioannidis' 2005 paper to highlight issues like bias, p-hacking, and publication fraud, often with critical tone and skepticism, which reflects a recognition of systemic problems but also varied willingness to accept the findings' implications without dispute.
Most discussions critically recognize the core message of Ioannidis' paper, highlighting the prevalence of flawed research and skepticism towards scientific reliability, but some still defend or dismiss the findings, showing disagreement.
The discussions demonstrate active curiosity and concern about research validity, with many engaging deeply by referencing studies, implications, and criticisms, indicating a moderate level of interest.
Participants reference specific concepts such as p-hacking, reproducibility, peer review, and biases, and some have posed questions or critiques, which suggests they are engaging with the material beyond surface level.
While some posts emphasize the importance of the paper and its implications for scientific integrity, others are more dismissive or skeptical, indicating that the overall impact on the broader perception of science is mixed and not highly transformative f
Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a research scientist at Stanford who is best known for his 2005 essay "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" With the greatest irony, twenty years later, https://t.co/X3DiqeEWRY
Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
“So you’re saying we can’t work on science reform at all” No. I have being working on this for a decade and continue to do so. I’m saying don’t make a name for yourself by lying about the scope of the problem using ridiculous models that require absurd assumptions to get off the ground.
Certains domaines scientifiques sont actuellement dans une crise profonde causée par une mauvaise utilisation/interprétation des statistiques, qui a conduit à la crise de reproductibilité décrite par John Ioannidis en 2005: https://t.co/Wa1GZwj6sJ 6/n
6. I don’t start off by saying that science is hopelessly broken and it needs a savior. I sure don't position myself as that savior. I don’t start off by claiming that most contemporary science is wrong. God knows I don’t start off with something like this dreadful piece of motivated mismodeling.
Yesterday @ScottAdamsSays asked: How can AI ever be a good doctor if half of its “training data” is false? Watch this clip, then check my follow-up comment about the Stanford professor who predicted this problem 20 years ago in “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” https://t.co/QLjrp5kv0h
It seems we have a problem John Ioannidis said There is increasing concern that in modern research false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. Over 70 of researchers have…
This episode examines the reliability of peer review in science, highlighting concerns about factors that influence the credibility of published findings and the potential for false research claims.
This video examines the facial feedback hypothesis, exploring how facial expressions may affect emotions. A recent replication study showed no significant impact, highlighting challenges in psychological research…
This video looks at major problems in scientific practice, including fabrication and falsification of research data. We discuss the impact of skewed incentives, publication bias, and solutions to enhance the reliability…
Most medical research is false. This video explores the alarming trend of unreliable studies and their impact on patient care. We discuss the long-term outcomes of various treatments for varicose veins, revealing…
Concerns are rising about the reliability of published research findings, with various factors influencing the truth of these claims. These include study size, effect sizes, and biases from financial interests…
Whats the truth about prostate cancer treatments. There are many options including surgery, radiation, and focal therapies, but current evidence does not conclusively show they save many lives. The risk of complications…
Prostate cancer awareness campaigns often rely on ineffective tests. PSA blood tests and digital rectal exams have high false positive rates and limited reliability, failing to significantly reduce mortality. This video…
Whats the truth about the PSA test? The PSA test is highly unreliable with a high false positive rate and no proven mortality benefit. Most prostate cancers are outlived, and screening may cause more harm than good.
Prostate cancer screening is highly unreliable, with PSA levels often misleading. High false positive rates and inability to distinguish aggressive cancers question its effectiveness in saving lives.
Concerns are rising about the reliability of published research findings, with various factors influencing the truth of these claims. These include study size, effect sizes, and potential biases, raising questions about…
Prostate health refers to the wellbeing of the prostate gland, a crucial organ in male reproductive and urinary health. Prostate cancer awareness programs aim to promote screenings and support, but recent studies…
The video summarizes research on the safety and effectiveness of masks, providing physiological explanations and theories. It highlights studies showing limited or no protective benefits and discusses potential harms…
Men's Health Month in June aims to raise awareness of preventable health issues, promote early detection, and encourage healthy lifestyles. It also includes prostate cancer awareness, which focuses on early screening…
This video discusses recent findings that highlight the limited success of antidepressants in treating depression. It argues for a shift towards safer and more effective therapies, supported by empirical evidence…
Concerns are rising about the reliability of published research findings, with factors like study size, effect sizes, and biases affecting truth. Simulations suggest many claims may be false, questioning the integrity…
The reproducibility of scientific results is critical in medicine, as practitioners rely on published studies regarding drug efficacy. This video discusses recent concerns about biased reporting, including the Turner et…
RT @RosanaFerrero: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", de John Ioannidis. Lejos de ser un ataque a la ciencia, reflexionemos…
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", de John Ioannidis. Lejos de ser un ataque a la ciencia, reflexionemos sobre
@simonmaechling So I can assume this author did a reasonable job in his study suggesting most published findings are false ? https://t.co/WfOkTzZNxR.
Who are anti-vaxxers? Why does DR Stone deny fraud in mainstream science? Why does he fail to address info like this ? In real life I know loads of vaccine injured people. That reality is kicking in now. https://t.co/F5H0quGFBD https://t.co/3a0ijGL2fW https://t.co/lCABiv6ESB https://t.co/d7iEFUvLL6
https://t.co/G3hVKVQqKR
https://t.co/G3hVKVQYAp
@mirage94266 Based on your posts about AI history, research biases, and quant finance, dive into the "Replication Crisis" in psychology and social sciences. Start with John Ioannidis' paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (2005), then explore p-hacking via Andrew Gelman's
@matsciguycanada @_Truthster @StillDizzy2 @KatAMiller10 @Cern_IXXI @bex_fur @A_Damned_mk2 @OnlyaMoment3 @magicaltime123 @Wolfpak561 @HarveyWall15 @Covidtalk1 @TBRagsdale1 @Bumpalump99 @BrianNazarenus @willsworldview @kim_because @NHoomans @ro_zaff2023 @TertiusIV @Akinyemisback @orna_verum @AllTheThings79 @wisemanryder @gvnzng @itisjustmebabe @randomizer88996 @timmbosliceeee @wiorldpease @MM66680 @jokat6158 @MindfulDamage @badgervindaloo @EFJ1980 @zypisfy @Janetb172 @SecularSmurfAU @Avic_Wins @1pckt @TJMair @TheCookieSavior @VinceGottalotta @RayleneMason_ @giddy_bunny @SecularSmurf @BrackardsWrench @IrisB42744268 @Conserberal @OpenlyReasoned Data sets are subject to interpretation and theory-building. Also data sets can be too small or non-representative. Did we talk about Ioannidis' paper yet? https://t.co/JF0F8DrnMg
https://t.co/zvm21E63uh
@MT_urawatomiki Analysis of Internal Industry Documents. JAMA Intern Med (2016). Ioannidis JP. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med (2005). Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science (2015). —— もっと具体的な「論文→
@MT_urawatomiki の研究プログラムを資金提供・操作していたことを文書で示したケーススタディ。業界資金が研究議論を長期にわたり歪めうる具体例。 4. 研究の構造的脆弱性（Ioannidis, PLoS Med 2005 — “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”） → 小標本・選択的報告・研究者のバイアスなどの一般的→
I think the “why most published research findings are false” paper suggests this as one of the heuristics for identifying “false” findings.
@labsarekindest @KrutikaKuppalli @BillCassidy https://t.co/S8XOMPEhMM
@Bumpalump99 @Akinyemisback @BrianNazarenus @willsworldview @OnlyaMoment3 @kim_because @NHoomans @ro_zaff2023 @TertiusIV @bex_fur @A_Damned_mk2 @Covidtalk1 @orna_verum @magicaltime123 @AllTheThings79 @TBRagsdale1 @matsciguycanada @wisemanryder @gvnzng @itisjustmebabe @randomizer88996 @HarveyWall15 @Cern_IXXI @Wolfpak561 @timmbosliceeee @wiorldpease @MM66680 @KatAMiller10 @jokat6158 @_Truthster @StillDizzy2 @MindfulDamage @badgervindaloo @EFJ1980 @zypisfy @Janetb172 @SecularSmurfAU @Avic_Wins @1pckt @TJMair @TheCookieSavior @VinceGottalotta @RayleneMason_ @giddy_bunny @SecularSmurf @BrackardsWrench @IrisB42744268 @Conserberal @OpenlyReasoned Did you read the paper by Ioannidis? Let's make sure we understand what science even is first, then it will become clear that it requires a certain acceptance of it's epistemic assumptions. https://t.co/JF0F8DrnMg
@matsciguycanada @OnlyaMoment3 @magicaltime123 @_Truthster @HarveyWall15 @Bumpalump99 @BrianNazarenus @willsworldview @kim_because @NHoomans @ro_zaff2023 @TertiusIV @bex_fur @A_Damned_mk2 @Akinyemisback @Covidtalk1 @orna_verum @AllTheThings79 @TBRagsdale1 @wisemanryder @gvnzng @itisjustmebabe @randomizer88996 @Cern_IXXI @Wolfpak561 @timmbosliceeee @wiorldpease @MM66680 @KatAMiller10 @jokat6158 @StillDizzy2 @MindfulDamage @badgervindaloo @EFJ1980 @zypisfy @Janetb172 @SecularSmurfAU @Avic_Wins @1pckt @TJMair @TheCookieSavior @VinceGottalotta @RayleneMason_ @giddy_bunny @SecularSmurf @BrackardsWrench @IrisB42744268 @Conserberal @OpenlyReasoned Did you read the paper by Ioannidis? https://t.co/JF0F8DrnMg
@badgervindaloo @matsciguycanada @Akinyemisback @Bumpalump99 @BrianNazarenus @willsworldview @OnlyaMoment3 @kim_because @NHoomans @ro_zaff2023 @TertiusIV @bex_fur @A_Damned_mk2 @Covidtalk1 @orna_verum @magicaltime123 @AllTheThings79 @TBRagsdale1 @wisemanryder @gvnzng @itisjustmebabe @randomizer88996 @HarveyWall15 @Cern_IXXI @Wolfpak561 @timmbosliceeee @wiorldpease @MM66680 @KatAMiller10 @jokat6158 @_Truthster @StillDizzy2 @MindfulDamage @EFJ1980 @zypisfy @Janetb172 @SecularSmurfAU @Avic_Wins @1pckt @TJMair @TheCookieSavior @VinceGottalotta @RayleneMason_ @giddy_bunny @SecularSmurf @BrackardsWrench @IrisB42744268 @Conserberal @OpenlyReasoned Why do I care if you mute me? That's your concern not mine. Science is a methodology based on various epistemic assumptions which haven't been entirely consistent by the way. Were you not here for the paper I shared by Ioannidis "Why Most Published Re
@abc098788 @IanCopeland5 @LilyKittyCat09 @ghostofwillwall Doesn’t matter the journal they all have fraud! John Ioannidis, epidemiologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine, published an article titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” https://t.co/lrtlhk5bfv
@Christophe37461 https://t.co/aIZqcxykZO
@sir_conspiracy @simonmaechling John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine, published“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” which subsequently became the most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS). https://t.co/lrtlhk5bfv
"Years after Brigham-Harvard scandal, U.S. pours millions into tainted stem-cell field" www.reuters.com/investigates... A bit outdated news Fabricated data in most research fields Reminds me of the following article "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" journals.plos.org/plosmedicine...
@IanCopeland5 Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (NIH, 2005) https://t.co/qF10KJhnpu
@huonemies @PuolimatkaTapio Kukaan ei tiedä kaikesta kaikkea ja siksipä juuri fysiikan nobelisti käyttää järkeään, sillä: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (vertaisarvioitu tutkimus, John Ioannidis 30.8.2005)
@AnnaAfursin1 @PuolimatkaTapio "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"(2005 Aug 30, John Ioannidis)
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" is a 2005 essay written by John Ioannidis, a professor at the Stanford School of Medicine, and published in PLOS Medicine. It is considered foundational to the field of metascience. And now AI Is Supercharging Scientific Fraud.
@_HeartofGrace_ And then comes the problem of methodology of research itself. Referencing - Why Most Published Research Findings Are False by John P A Ioannidis
@Saganismm Blasphemy. https://t.co/JF0F8DrnMg
@FredHikes @dirk_fasshauer @FiendInno @NoKings_4_USA @StillDizzy2 @randomizer88996 @ahrehead @A_Damned_mk2 @Emperor_Mollari @MidgardNextStop @OddBackgrowy @zypisfy @PatricktheB @MindfulDamage @AllTheThings79 @TW175663056 @TBRagsdale1 @bex_fur @MucusMucous1 @KenWali1 @1eyedwilly56 @SecularSmurfAU @MichaelSteidel @mirandaisrisen @FuckFascists101 @gdoughdoc2 @NHoomans @MALpoolmaint @Janetb172 @IMudlet @ro_zaff2023 @TertiusIV @murphy_oce80430 @BrianNazarenus @JesusGibb @enitas13 @SecularSmurf @matsciguycanada @IrisB42744268 @RealDevil1978 @MilesMosley6662 @JUReality @impeachqueen @J_R_Eldridge @pray2pesci @wrongwaywilly56 @shock_hazard @GeneralPopulous Here is a very interesting paper on this subject https://t.co/JF0F8DrnMg
Medicine https://t.co/tWnBjnQVal https://t.co/lvgmKKs9G2
@Moshe_Friedman_ @yoavgo @Gvpx123 זה לא מה שעומד במרכז המאמר של איונידיס? Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" em um gráfico: https://t.co/Fral7UofSX
Science Education: Source: ChatGPT: Read John Ioannidis Book: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False "He demonstrated mathematically that most medical studies are likely false due to design flaws and incentives that favor positive results."..it became one of the most
Science Education: Source: ChatGPT: Read John Ioannidis Book: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False "He demonstrated mathematically that most medical studies are likely false due to design flaws and incentives that favor positive results."..it became one of the most
Science Education: Read John Ioannidis Book: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
@TorGHeggem @RealRoald The Sience!!! Og disse er ikke engang aktivister. https://t.co/OmOQjHDFxb https://t.co/7zGuHwi7AA
RT @IntegralAnswers: 23/ Bias, Replication & Over-Interpretation 16.Ioannidis JPA. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med…
23/ Bias, Replication & Over-Interpretation 16.Ioannidis JPA. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124.
@Vanusvik @OttenHM @Mantingerveld Ga de wetenschap volgen, man... https://t.co/ieW2kRoyhB Follow the science, but....
Peer review is often a fraud. https://t.co/lCABiv6ESB https://t.co/86ZQwv7GQJ
Not sure why @simonmaechling makes thee generic statements that fly in the face of overwhelming evidence of scientific fraud? what does he hope to gain * who are his target audience? https://t.co/lCABiv6733 https://t.co/mukamv1PQH
@WSWayland So, this is based on your research of a body of published studies of which most of the findings are *known to be false* You rely on a method of science which has disproved itself...have you tried @TheDavidWeck RMT & rope flow? What does N=1 teach you? https://t.co/ffhLrbioz7 https://t.co/YdC7BnuXZu
@CesaIrene By default, one should treat as false any data-based research finding. https://t.co/iLOdfjNctA #EvidenceBasedReasoning^2
@DEVP_GANESH @svembu That's because we think of these "large, peer-reviewed studies" as some kind of gold standard. Prof. John Ioannidis' (Stanford School of Medicine) celebrated essay of 2005 established they're not: https://t.co/1foYQ5AW54
RT @georgetolisjr: 20 years old but so relevant today… https://t.co/ZdkNpiDaTg
20 years old but so relevant today… https://t.co/ZdkNpiDaTg https://t.co/q6rS4Fjam6
@AlBowers11 @19joho @FiveTimesAugust @NIHDirector_Jay @VPrasadMDMPH @DrMakaryFDA I WIN!
RT @realPatrickJr: Yesterday @ScottAdamsSays asked: How can AI ever be a good doctor if half of its “training data” is false? Watch this c…
Why do you think Ioannidis wrote most research is false? It’s been 20years and things still haven’t changed. https://t.co/poGYfPC75h https://t.co/sH5JAMRB26
@ArtemisConsort The timing feels right to discuss a seminal paper, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by Ioannidis. Have you had a chance to read it? A 6-page read that exposes the critical flaws: selective reporting (highlighting only favorable results) or p-hacking (manipulating
@simonmaechling Truth is not determined by consensus…semantically, or otherwise. Consistently false? Does Ioaniddis’s “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” mean anything to you? Or “group-serving dishonesty”? Perhaps they should mean…more, in the very least.
@grok @PLAYERLOLO21 @sergiodde Oui mais cette idéologie est actuellement en cours en utilisant des données biologiques biaisées que tu répètes en boucles alors que tu pourrais citer l'article de John Ioannidis:" Why most published research findings are false?" Ce serait scientifique aussi, non?
@peterproctor @antiDogmaDr @chris_darnielle @simonmaechling John Ioannidis’ classic paper Why Most Published Research Findings Are False showed how financial incentives and publication bias distort results -especially in medicine. Perhaps you’re just blinded by the illusion of 'consensus' that money buys.
@DucHoan07242344 @BioProtocol
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False | PLOS Medicine @bakhsh_reda
RT @realPatrickJr: Yesterday @ScottAdamsSays asked: How can AI ever be a good doctor if half of its “training data” is false? Watch this c…
@ophello @jsm2334 Are you claiming that these studies have no flaws? And what are the flaws in this study? https://t.co/AQ4ETOMy00
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False by John Ioannidis from Stanford is a compelling read, exploring bias, conflicts of interest, and more.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False by John Ioannidis from Stanford is a compelling read, exploring bias, conflicts of interest, and more.
@SampsaMakela @veitera @huppupelikaani Juuri niin se tekee, ja tuosta "luotettavuusilmiöstä" kertoo mm. eniten siteerattu lääketieteen tutkija John Ioannidis: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (PLoS Med. 2005 Aug 30).
@maenen1949 @FrankPeeters4 Naast het Asch dynamieken argument van @FrankPeeters4 gooit U er nog even de Milgram dynamieken bovenop. QED. https://t.co/1PohXGVuNh
RT @realPatrickJr: Yesterday @ScottAdamsSays asked: How can AI ever be a good doctor if half of its “training data” is false? Watch this c…
RT @looper2day: @therealRYC @Nature Top cited article in all of modern medicine is “Why Most Published Research Studies Are False” (2005).…
@therealRYC @Nature Top cited article in all of modern medicine is “Why Most Published Research Studies Are False” (2005). https://t.co/VODfAPnCMP
RT @realPatrickJr: Yesterday @ScottAdamsSays asked: How can AI ever be a good doctor if half of its “training data” is false? Watch this c…
RT @realPatrickJr: Yesterday @ScottAdamsSays asked: How can AI ever be a good doctor if half of its “training data” is false? Watch this c…
RT @realPatrickJr: Yesterday @ScottAdamsSays asked: How can AI ever be a good doctor if half of its “training data” is false? Watch this c…
Yesterday @ScottAdamsSays asked: How can AI ever be a good doctor if half of its “training data” is false? Watch this clip, then check my follow-up comment about the Stanford professor who predicted this problem 20 years ago in “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” https://t.co/QLjrp5kv0h
@grok @JamesMarsh79 How will LLMs excel if the paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John P. A. Ioannidis true ?
@BobKerns @jonathanstea @CaulfieldTim Reality’s not the arbiter. A ‘manipulated perception’ of reality is. Science is easily falsified. People who believe science is trustworthy, willingly submit their life as the wager of that belief. True or false reality is frequency-based & discernible. https://t.co/vYjItJV2E2 https://t.co/CYkvCXMGC4
@grok @muggie_co @brewmarkets Again @grok don't be a yes man. Just because someone, sometime made a study doesnt prove it's universally true. Bezos as unoriginal one can be, reproduces incomplete studies. @grok are you aware that most published research findings are false? doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
@calleymeans Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
@calleymeans I’m actually drafting a tweet about this very problem — Stanford medical professor John Ioannidis published in PLOS twenty year ago, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" So the next time someone sends you a PUBMED link, remember Professor John.
@calleymeans Horton is correct, but being too soft here. How about Dr. Ioannides, PLOS (2005), why most published findings are false. https://t.co/dn9kzRBxmn
@Peter_Fitz You have no idea about academia. Have you heard of the replication crisis or "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John Ioannidis. How about the Alzheimer's research fraud or "close to 90% of cancer biology publications are irreproducible" https://t.co/tQxLrYalpi).
@RizomaSchool @jcberglund https://t.co/jZh8UBiesR
@ohiovoter4145 @simonmaechling Keep up the fantasy, false science is depending on it. “There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false” https://t.co/vYjItJV2E2 https://t.co/6PFnz8V82A
@Dr_JDietrich @MakisMedicine How "studied" are the current cancer treatments??
@jediramza @Healingisfree The claim stems from a 2005 paper by John Ioannidis titled "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," which argues that biases, small studies, and flexible analyses can lead to many false positives in research. It's influential but debated— not all fields are equally
@koupa_assos @hellaspecial Ο Ιωάννης Ιωαννίδης είναι καθηγητής Ιατρικής στο Stanford, με εστίαση στην επιδημιολογία και τη μετα-έρευνα. Διάσημος για το άρθρο "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (2005). h-index: 272, συνολικές αναφορές: >650.000 (Google Scholar). Θεωρείται από τους κορυφαίους
@mCasual1 Your satire on peer review's "malin plaisir"—demanding exhaustive scrutiny (data, donors, calibrations, even assistants' rap sheets and sneaker brands)—echoes Ioannidis' "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (2005), highlighting replication crises amid overzealous
@chkdsk99 Show them John Ionnadis' 2005 paper. https://t.co/CVPEfpASIH
@feelthebyrn1 @SciTriat Ioannidis 2005 on why most published research findings are false. Hurts the head but worth a read.
@MrPerson36581 @richjayonx @BadAceMike @Strandjunker https://t.co/5kXeyIxDYw
@DonaldW60852684 @profstonge Probably from this: https://t.co/7C0mLgJNWE /1
This classic was published 20 years ago. https://t.co/05mKuD476r
@claudiorlandi bro... ALL academic journals are a circle jerk. we discovered the crisis in 2005, nobody has done anything about it. https://t.co/sixZaiET6l
@Wee_Cee00 @JennSedlerMD @apathymiller I don't live for professional medicine and research which is mostly a scam. I live for myself. The majority of research results are non-replicable. And most published research findings are false: https://t.co/AQ4ETOMy00
@realPatrickJr @TroubledTribbs @harryfisherEMTP John Ioannidis is a Greek-American physician-scientist and Stanford professor known for work in evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, and metascience. His most popular essay is "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (2005, PLOS Medicine), arguing that factors like
@veitera @LiukkonenJuuso @grok Voi jopa olla rahoittajavetoista"tieteellistä" tutkimusta,mikä näkyy tuloksissa. Arvostettu lääketieteen tutkija John Ioannidis kirjoittaa: "Why MOST Published Research Findings Are False"ja mm."Bias can entail manipulation in the analysis or reporting of findings" Med2(8):e124
@SaiKate108 @jsm2334 Just because a study is published doesn’t make it true. https://t.co/8lheRFe6FD Each study needs to be probed for its validity Post publication peer review is an important quality control of the scientific method. https://t.co/OkLAkukAe5
Science is being used to control the people and dictate what is unfolding, yet what if much of science being published and shared is false? Don't believe me, read this article from 2005 https://t.co/euofg6gCOX
@cynicalAxolotl @DonShlonzo @LibertyHannes Bias und Subjektivität sind wahrscheinlich die größten Probleme mit der "Wissenschaft" und peer review. Ein relativ zeitnahes Beispiel ist Niel Ferguson und sein COVID-Modell. https://t.co/NtkyVX6MKe https://t.co/0VdxFe5YBc
@ShahdMoham15031 @UncensoredAm @MyronGainesX @UofSC so you are asking for a study that says most studies are false. here it is woman https://t.co/JetFSCAg6e
PLOS Medicine Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://t.co/wg32hI3DLN
ほとんどの研究結果は偽物 https://t.co/2nPY7AmmFI
@cowtow222 I do recommend his seminal 2005 paper tho. You might also like his "cookbook paper" https://t.co/tWnBjnRsZT
RT @LloydDurwin: @WallStreetApes Over 50% corruption is backed by John Ioannidis' 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are Fals…
@AmbroserayRay @JoshWalkos It does matter if you are interested in finding the truth for the cause of the “bright blinking light”. What if there are errors in the methodology biasing the results? Even peer-reviewed publications can be wrong. https://t.co/8lheRFeEvb
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://t.co/f5sN2H2TEL
@1in5advocacy @cantharellusc @CBHeresy @grok Firstly, beware of what you think is "research." Very many supposedly scientific papers/studies are not valid or reliable. Begin with reading works by John Ioannidis, which explain why most published research findings are false. Then you can learn to tell the difference.
Over 50% corruption is backed by John Ioannidis' 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," estimating false positives in 80% of non-randomized studies due to p-hacking (https://t.co/s3RttAqhtV). A 2018 Nature survey of 1,576 researchers found 70% couldn't https://t.co/t0wXwxonbN
@WallStreetApes Over 50% corruption is backed by John Ioannidis' 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," estimating false positives in 80% of non-randomized studies due to p-hacking (https://t.co/s3RttAqhtV). A 2018 Nature survey of 1,576 researchers found 70% couldn't
@baard2000 @_HeartofGrace_ 4 Ioannidis: "Why most published research findings are false" That time 70-90%, after 2020 even much higher. Scientist, in particular academia dislike these fact ... And tend to disregard that most publications are useless.
@obiuan78 @Adriano72197026 Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," E' uno dei libri più letti in ambito scientifico. Poi Lancet ha pubblicato il falso studio sullo efficacia dell'idrossiclorochina. Meglio affidarsi al buon senso...
@rencar130 @LucciaorLucy @jakescottMD @thekibosch https://t.co/76AQbbS4rx https://t.co/z6Z4gWZrDz
@konznho @chn56_ @blognaointendo Se vc realmente acredita que a qualidade dos artigos está melhorando ou mesmo não mudou, Jovencito. Não argumentarei, deixarei aqui algo que você, como pesquisador, deveria ter lido: https://t.co/w7JoRJroi2
@Krog2025 @Tablesalt13 @MRolly19 The study you might be referring to is John Ioannidis' 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," which shows many peer-reviewed findings are unreliable due to biases and stats issues. If about non-peer-reviewed work, a 2021 analysis found ~60% of preprints
@saraatayan @Ervin_dearcelo2 اتفاقاً... مقالات دانشگاهی سراسر اشکال هستن. یکی از معروفترین مقالات دانشگاهی جهان سال ۲۰۰۵ منتشر شد و عنوانش اینه که «چرا بیشتر یافتههای پژوهشی اشتباهند» و یه جورایی میشه گفت یکی از تاریخسازترین مقالات سی سال اخیر بوده. (این مقاله ۱۴۶۶۱ سایتیشن داره!) https://t.co/4m5MSVHEsz
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - John P. A. Ioannidis Published: August 30, 2005, by @hedleyrees https://t.co/DTmI1Utsqf
@AstrellaVt @AngeIiko @esjesjesj Lol the timing is coincidental because it's causational. The fact that they don't allow studies that would confirm these kind of things to be done is not surprising when you understand that "the science" is primarily profit driven & ideologically captured. https://t.co/BRLy5Sjwux
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - John P. A. Ioannidis Published: August 30, 2005 https://t.co/27pUPHWQnD
@CoggleMaggie @Lord_Woodsy @IainDale Lot's of people are "fans", including John Ioannidis, whose 2005 essay "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" was the most-accessed article in the history of Public Library of Science (PLOS) as of 2020
@ScienceNews John Ioannidis's landmark 2005 paper 'Why Most Published Research Findings Are False' transformed scientific methodology. Rigorous standards and pre-registered trials have dramatically improved reproducibility rates in the decade since.
@DOGEQEEN Bye, bye... I don't want to be dragged into the Germ THEORY... Do they understand a theory is not proven? Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://t.co/BmEKWQZpuS. https://t.co/3k0olmrjkA
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False | PLOS Medicine https://t.co/nAObOXPv6c
@BowTiedLoon @AJA_Cortes I'm talking about Pubmed being garbage in garbage out. https://t.co/vUI0C30uHV Written 20 years ago, still has relevance unfortunately. I'm a fan of AJAC btw.
@AstrellaVt @AngeIiko @esjesjesj That's what you're choosing to read into what I'm saying. Most research is not replicable & the more money that is tied to the outcome of a particular study, the higher the likelihood that it's agenda driven nonsense. https://t.co/BRLy5SiYEZ
RT @BertBervoets: Wetenschap als religie/dogma Het Verraad van de Intellectuelen https://t.co/mSu7kpZ1aM The Intellectual Yet Idiot https…
@RizomaSchool @jimbutlr https://t.co/jZh8UBiesR
RT @coreisma: @Tokyogreen @spidercatnz This is why you need to understand and be able to articulate the research method used if you're goin…
@Tokyogreen @spidercatnz This is why you need to understand and be able to articulate the research method used if you're going to reference an article; Why Most Published Research Findings Are False | PLOS Medicine https://t.co/iGgyV4Cytk TL;DR: most are bunkum
Esse disclaimer é importante não só porque profissionais utilizam argumentos como esse para tentar defender suas crenças… Como também porque temos como ponto pacífico que boa parte dos artigos publicados apresenta uma aferição incorreta da realidade. https://t.co/K7MxdY8TYD
@MGCXIII @ArchTheAtheist @AiG No conspiracy, if you were educated you'd already know this. Ironic it's a research paper but there you go. The 'peer reviews system is a bad joke. https://t.co/dlDJRV5vyL
@alexisschitt @grok @DrDavidNL @baard2000 And then? Simple minded people think: Peer reviewed is good. But this is not true. Ioannidis: "Why most published research findings are false" Nearly all were peer-reviewed!
@TheChiefNerd Psychiatry and Pharma is fake science - anyone with deep science understanding knows this ..SSRI is tip of a large iceberg. Read John P.A. Ioannidis (Stanford University)“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”.
Adjust your Bayesian priors. Most published research is wrong. DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 There is more fraud & error in nutrition than other domains. Nutrition has been corrupted by antihuman vegans, religious zealots, equity enjoyers & commercial interests. https://t.co/ok8YY7E0Sp
Adjust your Bayesian priors. Most published research is wrong. DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 There is more fraud & error in nutrition is than other domains. Nutrition has been corrupted by antihuman vegans, religious zealots, equity enjoyers & commercial interests. https://t.co/ok8YY7E0Sp
@literalbanana Most published research is wrong. DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 The rate of fraud & error is higher in nutrition research than other areas of medicine. The field of nutrition has been corrupted by antihuman vegans, religious zealots, equity enjoyers & commercial interests. https://t.co/GIYqw8IJn3
@ShachamAzriel https://t.co/YDZAVLKVTF
RT @c_plushie: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False @DrAseemMalhotra on John P. A. Ioannidis' study. From the study . . . "The…
ב-2005 פרסם ג'ון יואנידיס (Ioannidis) מסטנפורד מאמר פרובוקטיבי: "Why most published research findings are false" אם אתם מדענים, מהנדסים, רופאים, פסיכולוגים או עוסקים בניתוח נתונים ולא הכרתם את המאמר - אני ממליץ מאוד לקרוא. ואם לא - אנסה להסביר, בלי משוואות ומונחים מסובכים. https://t.co/Qw2bwOI2QR
Noticing that the paper in question got published and therefore updating negatively.
RT @MiraCB007: @Marion436842126 @LoreofRunning1 Besides being financed by Pharma, there are other biases and false reporting. https://t.co…
4⃣John Ioannidis (most cited medical researcher): "Most published research findings are FALSE" (Source: https://t.co/wcOC8zFH7L) ❌Only 40% of medical studies can be reproduced. ❌Millions of diagnoses lack scientific backing. ❌Evidence-based medicine = coin flip certainty. https://t.co/DOZZ0xcKAT
@denisrancourt The paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" shows a complete lack of understanding of the most basic principles of probability theory. https://t.co/zXwggXD9wd
@Eleanor23853117 @denisrancourt The paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" shows a complete lack of understanding of the most basic principles of probability theory. You can't just write down a complicated mathematical formula and claim that it represents something real https://t.co/zXwggXD9wd
@denisrancourt I am extremely surprised that the generally stellar statistical work of Dr. Ionanidis. It was his 2005 article, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" followed by others that demostrated bravery against the scientific, political norm including in 2021, "Infection
RT @1984PinkPanther: @jsm2334 Ioannidis concluded that many biomedical findings don't hold up over time in his 2005 paper "Why Most Publish…
@jsm2334 Ioannidis concluded that many biomedical findings don't hold up over time in his 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" and you can rest assured that the more money is involved the more fraudulent the research will be. Just look at the mRNA injections.
@Marion436842126 @LoreofRunning1 Besides being financed by Pharma, there are other biases and false reporting. https://t.co/SLrv9qB9xB
Just a reminder: research is good, but it doesn't mean that there are no more questions! The biggest question you can ask is: are the findings replicable? https://t.co/4rWOrvuSRY
@_everythingism @AngelicaOung John Ioannidis made the case that what goes for medicine likely also goes for other research. https://t.co/RcdTF95pVJ https://t.co/GiWe971v1z https://t.co/a13XEQko0R
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" produced no serious structural changes in academia despite being a compelling, well-known argument that the system is is no longer fit for purpose.
@XanthoLxi @PavlosPavlova @JonForest09 @Otto_English Yes, John Ioannidis' 2005 PLOS Medicine paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" argued that biases, small sample sizes, and financial interests lead to many false positives in peer-reviewed studies (e.g., PPV often <50%). This fueled the replication crisis, urging
Por qué la mayoría de los hallazgos de investigación publicados son falsos, en PLOS Medicine https://t.co/HT4Uxae2F1
RT @looper2day: @3dom13 This is the most cited article currently in medical “science.” It’s from 2005. It’s also top 5 most cited article i…
@3dom13 This is the most cited article currently in medical “science.” It’s from 2005. It’s also top 5 most cited article in all of “science.” “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” Trust the science at one’s own peril. https://t.co/oTxCTAKc1w
@simonmaechling Medical Science… https://t.co/L4lTHluPM7
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @NTFabiano: Source: https://t.co/V33B4eDiE2
RT @NTFabiano: Source: https://t.co/V33B4eDiE2
RT @NTFabiano: Source: https://t.co/V33B4eDiE2
RT @NTFabiano: Source: https://t.co/V33B4eDiE2
RT @NTFabiano: Source: https://t.co/V33B4eDiE2
Source: https://t.co/V33B4eDiE2
Dr John Ioannidis, who famously demonstrated "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" and criticized observational studies throughout the pandemic, here publishes a purely observational modeling study with acknowledged "extreme uncertainty." The Ioannidis et al. (2025) https://t.co/sxIGkC6tDz
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
@neen10426 @EndTribalism Why most published research findings are false: https://t.co/DoevF4vbw3
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
I'm sad to say it but your referenced study is probably wrong
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
McCullough Foundatio Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a research scientist at Stanford who is best known for his 2005 essay "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" https://t.co/4c3ACkTEUK
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
Stanford’s John Ioannidis, author of "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,", reveals why many scientific findings are false. | iai.tv/video/reason... Watch his thought-provoking interview on evidence, research flaws, and the future of science.
Stanford’s John Ioannidis, author of "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,", reveals why many scientific findings are false. | https://t.co/J4ZBfnL0Fp Watch his thought-provoking interview on evidence, research flaws, and the future of science.
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
RT @McCulloughFund: Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a res…
Dr Ioannidis Just Published False Research Findings He Warned About 20 Years Ago Dr. John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, is a research scientist at Stanford who is best known for his 2005 essay "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" With the greatest irony, twenty years later, https://t.co/X3DiqeEWRY
@AaSayang475001 @CLeniata @silvano_trotta John Ioannidis est un chercheur hautement fiable en méta-recherche et épidémiologie, professeur à Stanford. Son h-index est de 239 (Google Scholar, 2023), avec plus de 500 000 citations totales. Œuvres notables : "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (2005, >14k
@Ttol0030 @grok @boycantcook @Freethinker961 @JoshEakle Many erroneous studies are peer reviewed, here’s a peer reviewed study that shows most studies are wrong https://t.co/ntzEf3zwmJ
@Savvas98374297 @Rainmaker1973 https://t.co/76AQbbS4rx
@MVGutierrezMD @Nature 2 things to always remember when assessing the findings of such studies: -"Most published research findings are false" Ioannidis 2005 https://t.co/71UJEaScRa -"There are no respiratory viruses" Yeadon 2022 https://t.co/SFxuMwqAMv
@NFPublication @jonnichols87 @Apu_Apustajas @TheoryConspiry @BearlyHooman Appreciate the insight—selective data presentation is a real risk across sciences, as seen in critiques like Ioannidis' "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." Can you share a specific example from your experience or the IPA book (e.g., chapter/page)? Let's verify
RT @c_plushie: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False @DrAseemMalhotra on John P. A. Ioannidis' study. From the study . . . "The…
This paper is from John Ioannidis and coworkers. Ioannidis is a contrarian who is best known for his paper "Why Most Published Research Findings are False" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Mos... 3/n
@TheCasein @greyscaleham @iamAtheistGirl @CreationMuseum What “irrefutable evidence” was shown in the chart? Please circle it. Tried and tested? Where is that on the chart? Peer review? So you’re appealing to consensus and authority? https://t.co/Fkpl2gsXWH
@Th3birdman15 @DivinelyDesined @CreationMuseum They’re peer reviewing a paper with claims. How does me answering that help? You still haven’t answered my question lmao. An again, appeals to authority. Nice. https://t.co/Fkpl2gsXWH Peer reviewed doesn’t mean true. Hope this helps. Retard.
@BradSchoenfeld What is your evidence to support that claim? Here is a screenshot of a review which found that most published findings are false. https://t.co/ffhLrbioz7 Also, how do you account for science which pre-dates modern peer-review? For example, do you consider the canon of TCM? https://t.co/yId1kWZV6L
@BradSchoenfeld What is your evidence to support that claim? Here is a screenshot of a review which found that most published findings are false. https://t.co/ffhLrbioz7 Also, how do you account for science which pre-dates modern peer-review? For example, do you consider the canon of TCM? https://t.co/yId1kWZV6L
@DrMostapha To read more: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://t.co/tD0M4aRVx5 The Reproducibility Crisis: Credibility Revolution in Science https://t.co/IbRNzagiC9 Reproducibility and Research Integrity: Role of Scientists and Institutions https://t.co/IrBDAZqq4Q
@grok Years ago I read this article by renowned epidemiologist, Professor John Ioannidis. After a few hours with grok, I am convinced Prof Ioannidis was correct: peer review is a nonsense to be abused and manipulated by crims such as @grok. https://t.co/bvIDlfv5Ts
@Jiankui_He Reminds me of that paper by Dr. John Ioannidis entitled "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False". ‣https://t.co/HPRyJNLHJx ‣https://t.co/RwqEzwmcrW ‣https://t.co/oFjw6GDP2F
RT @gargantuandwarf: @grok @elonmusk Peer-reviewed doesn’t mean infallible @grok ffs!
@grok @elonmusk Peer-reviewed doesn’t mean infallible @grok ffs!
@krippenreiter Yeah it's depressing. Even science replicability has these problems... https://t.co/PWLah3Kk6Z https://t.co/xwHOy3WcLX https://t.co/752P4tlvNV Etc... The number of pubs on this topic is endless...
RT @PaulJRamirez: @kevinnbass Professor John Ioannidis lamented this sorry development in scientific research two decades ago! https://t.co…
From 2005: "Simulations show that for most study designs & settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true...'research findings' may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias." https://t.co/SsBZprzy0l https://t.co/4Ci0v11hsL
@carsonight @Rohanburdened @bigfatsurprise @paulctan I will indulge one last time with a published paper by the one of the most cited epidemiologist on the planet. https://t.co/flngvulR3S Bart Kay who made the video has both published science and was a peer-reviewer, to give you a short answer he would find it a waste of time.
@CryptSoupi @ellelledeell @ChrisMartzWX https://t.co/Lmv3fNTMJQ https://t.co/8Tb2g2zlL0
@lakeside227 @jrocinha99 @4thOfJuly365 Why Most Published Research Findings Are False | PLOS Medicine https://t.co/K2BzQGOWEl
@McCormickTyler_ @CherylBozarth @ErikLindy @gilmcgowan You’re buying into propaganda, peer-review is often wrong, see link below Fossil share of global energy isn’t changing anytime soon bud. Solar and wind aren’t ready substitutes. https://t.co/Lmv3fNUkzo https://t.co/oUcURxdLDO
RT @PaulJRamirez: @kevinnbass Professor John Ioannidis lamented this sorry development in scientific research two decades ago! https://t.co…
RT @PaulJRamirez: @kevinnbass Professor John Ioannidis lamented this sorry development in scientific research two decades ago! https://t.co…
RT @PaulJRamirez: @kevinnbass Professor John Ioannidis lamented this sorry development in scientific research two decades ago! https://t.co…
RT @PaulJRamirez: @kevinnbass Professor John Ioannidis lamented this sorry development in scientific research two decades ago! https://t.co…
RT @PaulJRamirez: @kevinnbass Professor John Ioannidis lamented this sorry development in scientific research two decades ago! https://t.co…
RT @PaulJRamirez: @kevinnbass Professor John Ioannidis lamented this sorry development in scientific research two decades ago! https://t.co…
@kevinnbass Professor John Ioannidis lamented this sorry development in scientific research two decades ago! https://t.co/T6cRTo3RCK
@SammmmBB_ @jonathanstea Humility isn't a virtue, it's a requirement. https://t.co/1v3qyQaZ8D
@neilt1978 @DrNeilStone I know, people should really read the literature for themselves instead of social media. https://t.co/TXXGbzHGTT
@roropsych You have chosen to describe roughly 70% of the country and ignore the rest. Most academia today, and for about 60 years running, is total fucking bullshit. 90% of the soft sciences. https://t.co/urpassefE0
@BlackAlphaNetw1 70% of all studies are false https://t.co/82rArbi6vO
@nkozyra @notrele92820933 @simonmaechling @grok citations of papers. https://t.co/zbGNXrXW5g
@aw_baran285 Poza tym… w tym kontekście już wolę fusy
@Altassistent @derkanalraeumer @rama_lama_lam @BBarucker @Quo_vadis_BRD @BrinkmannLab @DirkBrockmann @alena_buyx @CiesekSandra @c_drosten @FuestClemens @HallekMichael argumentum ad verecundiam https://t.co/V0URbUxJan. https://t.co/JGzjkF4FYR. PS: an der Preprint - Version wird gearbeitet. https://t.co/97naV7gOt8
@Liathetrader @PhightCo @Duderichy Most studies are false. Here is a study that proves it https://t.co/PCgkXYvyS4
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" but especially this one.
@CCCoderAI @duncanreyburn Scientisme is het *geloof* in de wetenschap, en dat is inderdaad dom, maar omdat je zelf een gelovige bent zal het lastig zijn je hiervan te overtuigen, maar hier alvast een opzetje: https://t.co/B34qUm7rYM
@henrikstroem @oresundsbaron Anerkendte af hvem? Det er kendt, at over halvdelen af konklusionerne i den medicinske litteratur er falske. https://t.co/CXj3Q8vGIR
@JohnHolbein1 Bold: https://t.co/wrstRprCHJ
@cedric_pusset @grouik03 @SergeZaka Oui je le sais. Mais aujourd’hui je m’interroge sur l’éthique et le processus des publications et vérification scientifiques qui sont largement mis à mal par les pouvoirs de l’argent À lire : https://t.co/iu7FatAiK6
@nypistat @mikaellindstro2 Forskning är inte så säker som de flesta tror. https://t.co/WSQhoEAHIy
@grouik03 @SergeZaka “La plupart des résultats scientifiques publiés sont faux.” Toujours d’actualité, 20 ans plus tard. https://t.co/iu7FatAiK6
@_TeoBeo_ @MatthieuBlois @SergeZaka “La plupart des résultats scientifiques publiés sont faux.” Toujours d’actualité, 20 ans plus tard. https://t.co/iu7FatAiK6
@MikeKon219 @Humanspective @grok https://t.co/2ff3Osttf2
@MikeKon219 @Humanspective @nicknam02636181 @DoD_DHA @USArmy @TRADOC https://t.co/2ff3Osu14A
RT @top_politiek: 4/6 Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - Prof #JohnIoannidis "Most current published research findings are…
RT @1smyy_: @edisdavis @gamzecengiz076 @Gulumser_Heper "Yayınlanan Çalışma Sonuçlarının Çoğunun Yanlış Olma Nedeni"
U mad about science? There's hope for you, even if you are an utter plonker. https://t.co/CWYIuV6f14
@EllieGAnders This has been an important topic for some time. John Ioannidis published on why most research findings are false, which also speaks to why they cannot be trusted/ replicated. https://t.co/4rWOrvvqHw
RT @sudokuvariante: Certains domaines scientifiques sont actuellement dans une crise profonde causée par une mauvaise utilisation/interprét…
RT @sudokuvariante: Certains domaines scientifiques sont actuellement dans une crise profonde causée par une mauvaise utilisation/interprét…
RT @sudokuvariante: Certains domaines scientifiques sont actuellement dans une crise profonde causée par une mauvaise utilisation/interprét…
RT @sudokuvariante: Certains domaines scientifiques sont actuellement dans une crise profonde causée par une mauvaise utilisation/interprét…
RT @sudokuvariante: Certains domaines scientifiques sont actuellement dans une crise profonde causée par une mauvaise utilisation/interprét…
RT @sudokuvariante: Certains domaines scientifiques sont actuellement dans une crise profonde causée par une mauvaise utilisation/interprét…
RT @sudokuvariante: Certains domaines scientifiques sont actuellement dans une crise profonde causée par une mauvaise utilisation/interprét…
RT @sudokuvariante: Certains domaines scientifiques sont actuellement dans une crise profonde causée par une mauvaise utilisation/interprét…
RT @sudokuvariante: Certains domaines scientifiques sont actuellement dans une crise profonde causée par une mauvaise utilisation/interprét…
RT @sudokuvariante: Certains domaines scientifiques sont actuellement dans une crise profonde causée par une mauvaise utilisation/interprét…
RT @sudokuvariante: Certains domaines scientifiques sont actuellement dans une crise profonde causée par une mauvaise utilisation/interprét…
Certains domaines scientifiques sont actuellement dans une crise profonde causée par une mauvaise utilisation/interprétation des statistiques, qui a conduit à la crise de reproductibilité décrite par John Ioannidis en 2005: https://t.co/Wa1GZwj6sJ 6/n
RT @ElaineR7: @grok @MrCassidy99 @BGatesIsaPyscho The medical journals are captured and censored, per RFK. DOJ is investigating. https://t.…
@grok @MrCassidy99 @BGatesIsaPyscho The medical journals are captured and censored, per RFK. DOJ is investigating. https://t.co/UiGJcvttt5 See also https://t.co/eDqXUpSM9A https://t.co/vqVlYyjsjH
@kevinnbass https://t.co/1PohXGUWXJ
@madd7887 @annamlulis Dr. John Ioannidis, director of Stanford prevention center: https://t.co/e6ZS8PldtK
@Jerry4BOfEd @DrNeilStone https://t.co/GgU7OLB84y
RT @Geoffiam: The moment you site a “study” is the moment I start only believing like 5 percent of you what say. https://t.co/nRWwXYhbs4
I often see Ioannidis' paper 'Why most published research findings are false' on reading lists. And by all means - I found it educational when I first read it. But you might also want a summary of the criticisms on the paper, and we dive into these in our @nulliusinverba.bsky.social podcast episode.
“So you’re saying we can’t work on science reform at all” No. I have being working on this for a decade and continue to do so. I’m saying don’t make a name for yourself by lying about the scope of the problem using ridiculous models that require absurd assumptions to get off the ground.
@CanadianHyperi1 @Papita272617 @Savage16May @Martyupnorth_2 https://t.co/zgiVb2sgSX
Link to study https://t.co/clsIlKhHGs
We have John Ioannidis and his bogus "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" article to thank for this, among others.
https://t.co/76AQbbS4rx
Well, it does seem logically flawed to build a movement based on assuming the correctness of a published research paper entitled "Why most published research findings are false" ...
@JoanaCotar Da es hier um die Rente geht, wird die Studie mit Prognosen und Wahrscheinlichkeiten arbeiten. Da die meisten Studien in ihrer Annahme falsch sind, halte ich davon eh nicht viel. https://t.co/S7bLrTSJe2
RT @TomaszLange17: First things first https://t.co/eW8Smov1R4
I really like a bunch of Battacharya's papers and Ioannadis's "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" is genuinely seminal. Sigh.
@lohareba51126 @AdamGajda12 @nayr__m @JDVanceFridge @conquistadorof1 @Capitalists1776 @lporiginalg https://t.co/eT3a69nb4K https://t.co/uzAweznbXt In gene research https://t.co/DCMow06vvq However, most reported associations are not robust: of the 166 putative associations which have been studied three or more times, only 6 have been consistently replicated.
Jag överdriverväl lite men det pratades mycket om det här för typ tio år sen. Ffa psykologi hade stora problem
@DrNeilStone You do realize that 50% or more of scientific studies can't be replicated? Hardly trust inspiring. Considering the vaxxine hysteria, it's a full-on disgrace. https://t.co/KD5oz6MQDu
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False by John P A Ioannidis (2005)
https://t.co/wTmWPfD4zw
@Damo__73_ @BarbaraPocock https://t.co/EUBS41Efha
New episode of @nulliusinverba.bsky.social ! We (very) critically discuss the classic paper by John Ioannidis 'Why most published research findings are false'. What did he get wrong, and why is it still interesting to read the paper? nulliusinverba.podbean.com/e/episode-56...
It seemed obvious to me, but people answered very differently. Ioannidis famously wrote a paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False". That was my guess.
僕はJohn P. A. Ioannidis先生の論文がとても好きなのだか、先生の論文の中で一番有名なのがこれですね。 Why most published research findings are false https://t.co/zzSIg183Ii
Why most published research findings are false: I love using their own articles and data! Follow the funders! https://t.co/DoevF4uDGv #Medicalresearch #publishedresearch https://t.co/XzvuwT6Fyv
@NavalismHQ @naval Because most published research findings are false. https://t.co/DcvhTLpGUi
@Sciences_Avenir Parfaite occasion de se refaire ces 2 vidéos : https://t.co/zKg9NJT8eh https://t.co/y0nMXzulBR .
In our latest episode we put out the call for good write-ups on the history of the replication crisis. @drcpennington.bsky.social has delivered as this is covered in her book "A Student's Guide to Open Science: Using the Replication Crisis to Reform Psychology" www.mheducation.co.uk/a-student-s-...
Ioannidis had his 'Why most published research findings are false' paper out in 2005 which overlaps with the 12-year period between publication and retraction of Wakefield's MMR-autism study. journals.plos.org/plosmedicine...
RT @ArtaMaster18927: @profnfenton After his paper on IFR, Ionnidas took a lot of heat and he is throwing a bone now to big pharma to get th…
@profnfenton After his paper on IFR, Ionnidas took a lot of heat and he is throwing a bone now to big pharma to get the shut tap open. (Incidentally, his most popular paper is "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" https://t.co/1QadPoZoUs)
"Survivorship #bias is one of the #research issues brought up in the ... paper 'Why Most Published Research Findings Are False', which shows that a large number of published #medical research papers contain results that cannot be replicated." @wikipedia.bsky.social en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivo...
There's a difference between improving culture vs. criticism. Efforts to improve should be supported, but criticism is hyperbolic & claims are exaggerated relative to data. e.g. Ioannidis stupid title "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (& his later efforts to discredit COVID masking)
6. I don’t start off by saying that science is hopelessly broken and it needs a savior. I sure don't position myself as that savior. I don’t start off by claiming that most contemporary science is wrong. God knows I don’t start off with something like this dreadful piece of motivated mismodeling.
RT @marumarutonton: PubMedに投稿されている医療系論文の研究結果は偏見にあふれており、研究の主張は真実よりも虚偽である可能性が高いと主張しているレポートもあることにも注意です。 発表された研究結果のほとんどが間違っている理由 https://t.co/…
@TajemniczyDon Przygnębiające: https://t.co/7bN4t7sX1z
Evidence-Based Medicine FAIL: Why Most Studies Are Wrong; Vein Doctor Ex... https://t.co/2iMEoaMkQY via @YouTube
Upcoming events - ReproducibiliTea online: reproducibilitea.org/calendar
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005) Discussion
내용을 이해하지 못하고 도구를 돌려서 숫자를 얻으면 그만인 곳에서는 언제나. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005) | Hacker News news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4164...
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False Discussion
@fiscologue @geograf1238 @Nain_Portekoi Le Citateur, c'est pas méchant mais je vous conseille vraiment de jeter un œil à ces 2 vidéos : https://t.co/ebUSmI0O0i https://t.co/Xg5i5gihwn Ça aide à prendre un peu de recul face à ce genre d'étude.
@___Claudias___ @GiovenaleEmilio Ho fatto ricerca per anni in università e conosco bene come "rendere gradito" un lavoro al committente (Azienda farmaceutica) uusando la statistica. https://t.co/hNOs98xS2o
Maybe you could also do Ioannidis's "Why Most Published Research Findings are False"? JPA Ioannidis, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", PLoS Med 2:8, e124. 2005-Aug. Good way to get people thinking about PPV & NPV, instead of false pos/neg rates. journals.plos.org/plosmedicine...
@GiovenaleEmilio https://t.co/hNOs98xS2o
@NMeschieri @Salepepe15 @Corvelva Ad ognuno il suo mestiere..... https://t.co/AlXdhCrunw
@Corvelva Ioannidis https://t.co/AlXdhCrunw
@bonjouir83 @Acermendax @DEFAKATOR_Off @NathLarigaldie @adfillon Ce serait chouette ! En attendant, pr les néophytes comme moi, y'a p.ex. celle-là de @TroncheBiais sur lire/analyser un article : https://t.co/z9Trn2CgWU Et une vidéo de @HygieneMentale et Zeste de Science sur la fiabilité des articles et où les trouver : https://t.co/UR7AhV6YyO
@jordanbpeterson @Nature Corporate sector destroyed science & education years ago. Lies are more profitable then truth, As the mis-educated are more useful then free thinkers. https://t.co/3pZTNCbg3v
@thelauraroman @bensmithlive you mean false paid studies...? https://t.co/wwDldFhMES
I used a couple of web articles: www.newscientist.com/article/mg25... theconversation.com/the-replicat... plus J. P. A. Ioannidis (2005). ‘Why Most Published Research Findings Are False’ and SEP (plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum...) for reference.
@DrJBhattacharya @steve_hanke I think that large majority of scientists who do empirical research do not understand enough statistics to be able to do empirical research objectively. Here is just one reference on this topic: https://t.co/dG5QGbxgub
@ScottAdamsSays @adam_gettel If Republicans are correct about conspiracies more than half the time, that puts them on a par with peer reviewed, published papers. https://t.co/lFgsWEp1m3
"Why most published research findings are false" by Ioannidis, 2005 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles... ... and the neuroscience focused version: "Power Failure" by Button et al., 2013
RT @Eleanor23853117: @EthicalSkeptic Dr. John Ioannidis's work buoys the Narrative Science Liar with these tactics in his 2005 article: "T…
@EthicalSkeptic Dr. John Ioannidis's work buoys the Narrative Science Liar with these tactics in his 2005 article: "There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false." https://t.co/seAABzajLN
Sloppy researchers, beware. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
This, taken in conjunction with John Ioannidis’ paper on why most published research findings are false, and in light of the pharmaceutical industry’s pervasive influence on research and legislation, is eye-opening and humbling.
@jonatanpallesen "Most Research Findings Are False for Most Research Designs and for Most Fields" Ioannidis J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS medicine, 2(8), e124. https://t.co/Iq5Ohr1qE0
Damn.
@Lurchgs @BretWeinstein Swimming in trickle. Sad reality is the powers that be like it this way. It affords them more control. Just look at all the pseudo science around covid, could never have happened in a scientifically functional system. https://t.co/3pZTNCbg3v
324 in three years? Is that, perhaps, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False?
@Euphemismic @PsychicNude @zap_lock @thenovanglus https://t.co/D5KgtTFsrS https://t.co/hhQXqeieqd
@GlynnErnesto @thenovanglus @zap_lock @RotundC Start paying attention to words like those i highlighted in studies. It's all supposition and opinions. Backed up w data manipulation. https://t.co/D5KgtTFsrS https://t.co/TAGobgnuTP
So much for "THE SCIENCE." Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. https://t.co/uwtVqhymOV Read this to find out how true this is: https://t.co/lbHkvTxKUH
And in 2005 this:
@MichaelAlbertMD @PepsiCo So you don’t look at finding sources for potential conflicts? https://t.co/RnTbVyicCy and https://t.co/gYm1oAtZGt make me always ask that question. https://t.co/klhbZIFIED
@RaisingSqrPegs @pondx779369 @AnnaSova17 @DopplerEffect93 @ButHisEmails @DanRehrauer https://t.co/D5KgtTFsrS https://t.co/pmJOrEzMEl
@Redazione_ROARS @BonoraGabriella https://t.co/yVwoj6n4YW
RT @voyzovreesun: @alexandrosM Why most published research findings are false https://t.co/CwaD0tM4aq https://t.co/FcNOFlHPNm
@alexandrosM Why most published research findings are false https://t.co/CwaD0tM4aq https://t.co/FcNOFlHPNm
@toadmeister @PaulKirkby3 https://t.co/5S3BVUbzRT
@cdobbs555 @slambama @JamesDissent @ColinTCrypto @RealCandaceO @RobertKennedyJr @joerogan https://t.co/3yd9v7adQx
Resultados similares han sido reportados para trabajos de evolución, psicología, neurociencias, epidemiología, biomedicina, economía, and so on. E.g. https://t.co/EcfwOUz58d https://t.co/F987ycBlMp https://t.co/V9oDJ2Xm8Q
RT @Jwhisked: @fleroy1974 John Ioannidis often has a point. He points out another good one here: https://t.co/rHWwodSw1R
@lporiginalg https://t.co/M8wHWvmonh
"Kaj pa vir?"
@fleroy1974 John Ioannidis often has a point. He points out another good one here: https://t.co/rHWwodSw1R
@TheNarrator000 @HighWireTalk https://t.co/QmhUDlCzlf
@PeterHotez @JHUPress @JohnsHopkins What a joke Why Most Published Research Findings Are False John P. A. Ioannidis Published: August 30, 2005 https://t.co/jaszmWUjim
@hankgreen @GeorgeTakei https://t.co/6ZugRwCvsU
@PatrickHeizer @MattPirkowski https://t.co/NvXG5gjTQW
@RedmoreE @GaryGol79007010 @Jesfiddlin @tonylinfreedom @markoftheD @stkirsch Most research simply reflects the pervailing bias. In most cases this is the interest of those performing the research, or indirectly benefiting from the conclusions of that research. https://t.co/0WMsLeL3yR
Why, when: ‘There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.’ Moreover, I could go to pubmed and find evidence that germs do not cause disease and that these diseases (flu, polio, etc…) are NOT infectious. https://t.co/YW0cxXiBwa https://t.co/NuRjS57fcM https://t.co/hXgMgRcHKE
Why, when: ‘There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.’ Moreover, I could go to pubmed and find evidence that germs do not cause disease and that these diseases (flu, polio, etc…) are NOT infectious. https://t.co/YW0cxXiBwa https://t.co/NuRjS57fcM https://t.co/hXgMgRcHKE
@ThisGuyTed @myhrvold_rune @FlyttaFraOslo @Silje_Schevig @NannJEvenmo @CJentoft @Odinbn @PanPand03831757 @Hvedrungr5 @eivindtraedal @Helsedir @Folkehelseinst Du kan åpenbart ikke så mye om forskning, min venn. Det understreker du med utsagnet "genuin forskning." Les denne: https://t.co/YLnGdg8CBU
@ANECAinfo @manuelansede @el_pais @UniversidadGob @CienciaGob Ya que se menciona a Ioannidis, este artículo suyo explica las consecuencias de la política científica actual: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False John P. A. Ioannidis https://t.co/zf3NkkYHSA
@AristotleMrs @ScientistRebel1 @RogerHallamCS21 @ExtinctionR @XRebellionUK @sunrisemvmt @ClimateDefiance @JustStop_Oil @AufstandLastGen @UltimaGenerazi1 Or https://t.co/xU66Z71p2r
RT @timand2037: According to John Ioannidis, financial ties trump peer review in the validity of published academic research. Many claimed…
RT @timand2037: According to John Ioannidis, financial ties trump peer review in the validity of published academic research. Many claimed…
RT @timand2037: According to John Ioannidis, financial ties trump peer review in the validity of published academic research. Many claimed…
RT @timand2037: According to John Ioannidis, financial ties trump peer review in the validity of published academic research. Many claimed…
RT @timand2037: According to John Ioannidis, financial ties trump peer review in the validity of published academic research. Many claimed…
RT @timand2037: According to John Ioannidis, financial ties trump peer review in the validity of published academic research. Many claimed…
https://t.co/n4b2Xkv6DF
RT @timand2037: According to John Ioannidis, financial ties trump peer review in the validity of published academic research. Many claimed…
RT @timand2037: According to John Ioannidis, financial ties trump peer review in the validity of published academic research. Many claimed…
RT @timand2037: According to John Ioannidis, financial ties trump peer review in the validity of published academic research. Many claimed…
RT @timand2037: According to John Ioannidis, financial ties trump peer review in the validity of published academic research. Many claimed…
RT @timand2037: According to John Ioannidis, financial ties trump peer review in the validity of published academic research. Many claimed…
RT @timand2037: According to John Ioannidis, financial ties trump peer review in the validity of published academic research. Many claimed…
According to John Ioannidis, financial ties trump peer review in the validity of published academic research. Many claimed research findings may often be "simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias." Here's the article. https://t.co/vWFEQccX6I https://t.co/YLKlOKy3Ex
RT @Annemarieward:
RT @Annemarieward:
RT @Annemarieward:
Good geeky reading for a sunday morning ... https://t.co/Q9NVEOohNk
RT @gyneth007: @Veritatem2021 @mikesamerica @KCTaz @Mark_A_Lunn @Robertchef77 @Anvndarnamn5 @BointonGiles @TWTThisIsNow @col_jed @Willard19…
@Veritatem2021 @mikesamerica @KCTaz @Mark_A_Lunn @Robertchef77 @Anvndarnamn5 @BointonGiles @TWTThisIsNow @col_jed @Willard1951 @borngeek @Stethereturn @TheDisproof @Callan23474387 @Climatehope2 @glinch72 @AristotleMrs @BradPKeyes @JustThi30117912 @25_cycle @Smithdsd11 @DoesThisW0rk @ammocrypta @0Sundance @3GHtweets @FD2you @Jaisans @S_D_Mannix @paulp1232 @MartinJBern @Data79504085 @ShroedingerBird @ChrisBBacon3 @EthonRaptor @B_Bolshevik100 @rosmadiwahab @Robert76907841 @EricWil06256732 @ProfMickWilson @FillmoreWhite @TommyLambertOKC @ncdave4life @RobMeekel @JohnDublin10 @NoTricksZone @RoelofBoer @DawnJT90 https://t.co/jNqGernlyW
@oa_perry למה אנחנו צריכים היום מחקרים שיוכיחו לנו את המובן מאליו? הפכנו כל כך תלויים במחקרים שהפסקנו להסתכל על המציאות עם העיניים שלנו ואנחנו מחכים למומחים שיספרו לנו את המציאות. https://t.co/LJ0nX9EGpx
@CedarBirch @Censored4sure "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" - John P. A. Ioannidis, 2005 (https://t.co/4g7itUzcex) https://t.co/2COAxSYWx2
@LordoftheMounts "They need to do reinforced training on it with the most recent scientific journals." I suspect this is what they have done. "Why most published research findings are false" https://t.co/NohcISY1eb
@DR_Hugh_Mungus @DrCanuckMD Dr. John Ioannidis, the most quoted scientist in the world, said most peer review is false. https://t.co/bHnaeVhYpP
@PaulSim81802192 @ProfTimNoakes https://t.co/PSx7qdorbe, there you go cup cake. To your point re credible try the following :https://t.co/7UxA7RFDxM, https://t.co/o4IulTDXzv. I'd rather be a nutter than to inject the spike protein into various organs of my body.. Don't forget your "booster"
RT @DaniForPeace: @MikeDonio Yes. Confirmation bias, especially when future grant money depends on it. https://t.co/ifjnLGE7hV
Si vous lisez des papiers qui s'intéressent à ça, vous tomberez des nues. https://t.co/2M4YLcIOJH
RT @DaniForPeace: @MikeDonio Yes. Confirmation bias, especially when future grant money depends on it. https://t.co/ifjnLGE7hV
@MikeDonio Yes. Confirmation bias, especially when future grant money depends on it. https://t.co/ifjnLGE7hV
RT @marumarutonton: PubMedに投稿されている医療系論文の研究結果は偏見にあふれており、研究の主張は真実よりも虚偽である可能性が高いと主張しているレポートもあることにも注意です。 発表された研究結果のほとんどが間違っている理由 https://t.co/…
@IanCopeland5 While we're on the subject, this 2005 paper by Ioannidis still does not get the attention it should and that's not even addressing the Grievance Studies Affair by Lindsay, Pluckrose, and Boghossian. And don't even get me started on P-value
PubMedに投稿されている医療系論文の研究結果は偏見にあふれており、研究の主張は真実よりも虚偽である可能性が高いと主張しているレポートもあることにも注意です。 発表された研究結果のほとんどが間違っている理由 https://t.co/Zx8ynSR7OA
@DiegoHAWK666 @midwestmantooth @HenryMullen500 @debwesteinde @NickDTRT @ABridgen 1. When posting a screenshot, give the source otherwise it's meaningless & gives impression of being taken out of context. https://t.co/5wVqUIyIhx 2. His article is anyway flawed. https://t.co/HUVp8wIaSX 3. Peer-reviewed journals remain the best source of scientific knowledge. https://t.co/LtCzcpadWy
@ScottAdamsSays In terms of healthcare research, start by reading John Iaonnidis' paper called: "Why most published research findings are false". He has done science a huge service by calling out all the bad practices. https://t.co/JINNDbb46U
@GadSaad This phenomena where "scientists" fall so in love with their theory, and then later can't admit they were wrong is pervasive in science. See John P. A. Ioannidis "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" https://t.co/5udZxN4Xj4
RT @DaniForPeace: @s3cp256k1 @drklausner And this...they came after him hard once this was published. Very telling. https://t.co/ifjnLGE7hV
@s3cp256k1 @drklausner And this...they came after him hard once this was published. Very telling. https://t.co/ifjnLGE7hV
@ScottAdamsSays https://t.co/6ZugRwD3is
@ScottAdamsSays Apparently we won't find out either. https://t.co/6ZugRwD3is
RT @DrRainerSchulz2: @breakpt Da bist Du spät dran, Vorrecht der Jugend
@breakpt Da bist Du spät dran, Vorrecht der Jugend
@gdesilet @bayesianboy ( I assume your reference is to https://t.co/0SWHwar4bb ?) I think the issue remains even if we grant that those fields are just quasi-scientific. For one, there are further examples like cosmology : https://t.co/ijxhWoOXmb But more to the point, our context here is that...
@shallit43 @JeanCrain2 @ryangerritsen How about this peer-reviewed literature? https://t.co/l00xRXpwxP
@seansabraw Most published studies are false. https://t.co/0tMHPA6tXr
@UScrimeReview i don’t “believe” anything, sir. https://t.co/amZtxmkVs9
@ChrisRegulus1 @ManueloD @RealSeasonNT1 https://t.co/qgHu8QRfbk
@admiralsequoia @ZemkeAlex @TristanSnell Again, I would agree in principle. However, my view is that science is ripe with so many biases that ultimately pervert the signal that published research is transmitting. https://t.co/PEVB6sfi8N
RT @glaco64: @NicoPegard @CorinneReverbel @RReichstadt Ou encore John Ioannidis épidémiologiste Pr de médecine à l’Université de Stanford q…
@NicoPegard @CorinneReverbel @RReichstadt Ou encore John Ioannidis épidémiologiste Pr de médecine à l’Université de Stanford qui publie en 2005 Pourquoi la plupart des études publiées sont fausses ? https://t.co/yct1egRTEh
Who defines "disinformation" and "science-related misinformation and misperceptions"? See: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" John P. A. Ioannidis, Public Library of #Science's most accessed article! https://t.co/sIpy3A57OY https://t.co/G0n3ZydjQv #ScientificMethod https://t.co/uY3SPX89SY
@LiftForever67 @ShelKel2 https://t.co/1V4jGigyFn
@DrSusanOliver1 https://t.co/cSfwvGZpzv
https://t.co/cSfwvGZpzv
@mervi_uushei Perat ovat peroja, mutta tutkitusti yli puolet julkaistuista tutkimuksista on väärässä: https://t.co/KSgq4pOBCd
RT @Anna5705: Why most published research findings are false https://t.co/r5I5EtRTJo
Why most published research findings are false https://t.co/r5I5EtRTJo
Why most published research findings are false John P A Ioannidis https://t.co/D8gKXbJTeA
@sneeje This is a more complicated topic than it might look like at first glance. It's quite a challenge to do science in a way that is both valid and useful for driving public policy. This video touches on some of the concerns. https://t.co/jIMdp8TRNx
Je vous renvoie àcette vidéo de Hygiene Mentale et de Zeste De Science dans le Vortex qui expliquent très bien le phénomène. https://t.co/2r7bu6jKHY
@necrobiomicon @thesassymicrobe @Nico250520 @SwaledaleMutton @IainMulady @a_solveig96 @RobertB20617044 @jneill @JamesNite9 @Debunk_the_Funk @DrSusanOliver1 "Most Published Research Findings Are False" "John P. A. Ioannidis Published: August 30, 2005 https://t.co/9crVzQJaEY” https://t.co/ZinOFkDka2
Bonne vidéo par les temps qui courent https://t.co/5OBMtqdozQ
@djc795 @drjohnm Like all tweets this does not mean I agree, but I’ll guess what you are thinking is something like this: https://t.co/gSxFMu0VgK
A relevant earlier study by the same author: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://t.co/SQvQIeXGzF by John P. A. Ioannidis Public Library of Science (PLOS) August 30, 2005
@JimBowersclimb @ShroedingerBird @EricWil06256732 @DarthFeodor @TWTThisIsNow @glinch72 @Mark_A_Lunn @Climatehope2 @WillWat6 @ItsTheAtmospher @BradPKeyes @Ceist8 @Jaisans @atherton_chris @3GHtweets @DGinCheshire @BointonGiles @TobyRayEnglish @AuroriaTwittori @RushhourP @MartinJBern @EthonRaptor @Willard1951 @Anvndarnamn5 @BailFund_Brawl @AristotleMrs @gstrandberg1 @ncdave4life @Jakegsm @ammocrypta @DTGvmd @wille99 @PaulDFarrar @TheDisproof @Veritatem2021 @Data79504085 @Hji45519156 @Valja46Zhark5 @drochir_thonnuk @paulp1232 @J0aquIm_B4rb0s4 @Sky48115666 @0Sundance @DoesThisW0rk @FD2you @S_D_Mannix @JustThi30117912 @ChrisBBacon3 @B_Bolshevik100 @rosmadiwahab Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://t.co/ZofyK4K9H7 https://t.co/VMf3aHxyti *
RT @h_okumura: こちらも必読→ John Ioannidis: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://t.co/rK0GSe2rEz https://t.co/5zbIx9DjGQ
@beenwrekt @jenneraub @misfiles76 @AstorAaron @LaffersNapkin @boutros555 @TinaG_SD @MarcusBeam1 @purplephenom @subsix848 It's almost like someone should write a paper about this.... (Just kidding: https://t.co/x34t7MRnUe.
https://t.co/94Is7bgG4A
La fiabilité des articles scientifiques | Hygiène Mentale & Zeste de Sci... https://t.co/WwtTQnW9ex via @YouTube
https://t.co/sM53amO1KT
https://t.co/sM53amO1KT
@PaulAtBillabong @fagandr1 @S_D_Mannix @BrknMan @Climatehope2 @TWTThisIsNow @JohnDublin10 @ammocrypta @Hji45519156 @WinWithScience @flyonthewall182 @0Sundance @TheDisproof @GregTruman4 @PeterJa00157710 @drolkrad_ehT @BarbaraGirouard @AristotleMrs @JustThi30117912 @ncdave4life @Willard1951 @EricWil06256732 @glinch72 @NonlinearDarren @maria_harrison @Stephen90045069 @Ceist8 @Data79504085 @FChecker76 @dan613 @Jaisans @GregCoo85844909 @25_cycle @don85375 @ZSRenn @1tsakeeper @LizHersch1 @gregchoat @Anvndarnamn5 @B_Bolshevik100 @NickMcGinley1 @RobMeekel @cieloyla @EthonRaptor @BradPKeyes @JSegor @Mark_A_Lunn @BridgetHolmstro @jwickers @PeterMayfitz Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://t.co/ZofyK4K9H7 https://t.co/VMf3aHxyti
@martinacarletti •https://t.co/ppj8vtdXsn
@etherea_etherea •https://t.co/ppj8vtdXsn
RT @Lisbeth09885192: •https://t.co/ppj8vtdXsn
@Dott_Alice •https://t.co/ppj8vtdXsn
•https://t.co/ppj8vtdXsn
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False John P. A. Ioannidis Published: August 30, 2005 https://t.co/BBIUWrIQmZ https://t.co/Bnibl16yaJ
https://t.co/sM53amwqmj
@DanielFooksArt "Why MOST PUBLISHED RESEARCH FINDINGS ARE FALSE" a scientific paper . DOI = "https://t.co/6GYkbTtyqu " https://t.co/Xk6uoguHSP
https://t.co/6Rbl1GdzPo
La fiabilité des articles scientifiques | Hygiène Mentale & Zeste de Science | Le Vortex #15 https://t.co/AhxmMQFi3V via @YouTube
@UnSisyphe @TrustMyScience Café = cancer (ou pas) https://t.co/FC09BeJHLe
@stevenmosher @S_D_Mannix @RuleByLogic @WAPFLondon @ancistroneura @ncdave4life @EthonRaptor @JsharkJill @nocowingbovril @Tokyo_Tom @ClimatePatriot @ianrowley677 @joetheatheistp @OscarsWild1 @insane_voice @TheDisproof @Ceist8 @swcrisis @BradPKeyes @Fauntleroy1934 @DawnTJ90 @Jamz129 @Tangomitteckel @joedieseldodge @BadgersNo @fknsavages27 @SimonPearson961 @JoeTheAtheist @CMorrisonEsq @maya_phd @CymaticWave @Schtickery @ClimateDepot @sueytonius @Willard1951 @jc_Craze @DanCady @PolAnimalAus @ZombiePiano @SimonMaxfield8 @CrangusShish @IngersolRobert @Gladfly1 @AtomsksSanakan @leonardjcohen @Kenneth72712993 @FrankWi74044551 @GillesnFio @MATTP1949 @sciam If you don't like Judith, here you go. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://t.co/ZofyK4K9H7 https://t.co/VMf3aHxyti
Ioannidis JPA (2005) Por qué la mayoría de los hallazgos de investigación publicados son falsos. PLoS Med 2 (8): e124. https://t.co/kZj664KteJ https://t.co/4EN8WQhdAZ
FAUT VOIR CE QU'ILS METTENT EN PLUS DEDANS COMME DANS TOUT Regardez "La fiabilité des articles scientifiques | Hygiène Mentale & Zeste de Science | Le Vortex #15" sur YouTube https://t.co/8MbvuogMrz
Según Ioannidis (2005), la mayor parte de resultados de investigaciones son falsos. ¿Qué debemos hacer como investigadores? ¿Qué deben hacer las revistas académicas relativo a este problema? Leer más en https://t.co/6vthqF8xUJ
RT @mymmouth: @borghi_claudio «Perché la maggior parte dei risultati di ricerca pubblicati sono falsi» https://t.co/EkWJpcjRsc John PA Ioan…
@borghi_claudio «Perché la maggior parte dei risultati di ricerca pubblicati sono falsi» https://t.co/EkWJpcjRsc John PA Ioannidis Pubblicato: 30 agosto 2005 https://t.co/uoN0mIAPAg
@dodokusu4 @kazmdemircii @whyyouinmyacc Bilim insanların söylediği çoğu şey yanlışmış başka bir bilim insanına göre? Bilim insanı diye bir insan türü yoktur. Mantıklı ve sağlam dayanağın varsa ünvanının önemi yoktur. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False? (John P. A. Ioannidis 2005) https://t.co/bOECOUPUqa
https://t.co/xhLL038LQj
@ScienceUpFirst @CPHO_Canada @CaulfieldTim @XTOTL @SiouxsieW @YorkRegionGovt @ambermac @heysciencesam @MoriartyLab @DeNovo_Fatima @COVID_19_Canada @jessicamalaty https://t.co/0f6mz475iS
https://t.co/xhLL03qneT
https://t.co/gUOPMJu0RG
100 years of previous knowledge, burned to cinder & ashes. The scientific world has been under siege & unreliable for a decades now. https://t.co/0f6mz475iS & now more than ever, anecdotal evidences are running rampant #Corruption #Criticalthinking #onpoli #Defundthemedia https://t.co/t0ZknMyo2M
Is most published science WRONG? – the replication crisis https://t.co/ICrVPcJNdz via @YouTube
Is most published science WRONG? – the replication crisis https://t.co/DMyk3W0YUv via @YouTube
Is most published science WRONG? - the replication crisis https://t.co/3rhA4GfiSl
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" is a very popular paper and idea among fellow clinicians, but winner's curse seems to be less known but perhaps a larger problem, especially as results are communicated as point estimates and NNT.
These aren't new problems, though! These kinds of conversations have been happening for ages. Andrew mentions this article "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" https://t.co/FnVfXomn8l
@kristatee @Christi45657364 @WhigStandard @WayneHill_YGK They use to make the same claims about DDT, asbestos, and tobacco. https://t.co/vxcfEvtBq8
La fiabilité des articles scientifiques | Hygiène Mentale & Zeste de Sci... https://t.co/3bHrKjY81y via @YouTube
Vie pratique #méthode #scientifique. #doute #EspritCritique https://t.co/ZusIIVyKqd
Le néophyte face à la méthodologie scientifique. Réflexions pour les contours de #EspritCritique. Comment se former une opinion sans être expert ? Quelle position prendre face aux incertitudes ? Cc @emaugard @emikochert @sylviefromentel https://t.co/At0SNQntCt
RT @ABTsutenkyo: Est-ce que moi, candidate perdue au doctorat, suis tombée en amour avec cette vidéo? Vous n'avez aucune preuve (spoiler :…
La fiabilité des articles scientifiques | Hygiène Mentale & Zeste de Sci... https://t.co/tGIV1z5clX via @YouTube
RT @Comicscience2: Pourquoi certaines études semblent parfois contradictoires ? Une vidéo du Vortex pour expliquer tout ça ! https://t.co/9…
RT @SharntGroMuzo: @Nevenjspquoi @Zoetincelle @PlacidStarfish @The_queercousin @ohwno - Avoir les moyens (techniques ie accès à internet, u…
La fiabilité des articles scientifiques | Hygiène Mentale & Zeste de Sci... https://t.co/ezul0S0dDn via @YouTube
RT @OpenResLeeds: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005) https://t.co/Berx6bRimr #RRTS20
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005) https://t.co/Berx6bRimr #RRTS20
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
https://t.co/v0QDox1aFY
@Le_Reveilleur De tête je crois que cette vidéo traite quelques un de ces points https://t.co/FC09BeJHLe
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124#:~:text=There%20is%20increasing%20concern%20that%20in%20modern%20research%2C%20false%20findings,claimed%20research%20findings%20are%20false
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
RT @ARTEfr: Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
Si c'est scientifiquement prouvé, ça veut dire que c'est vrai ? C'est faux
@effortfuleduktr 1. It treats learning as simple recall of something learned 48 hours ago. Also, the studies emanate from the social sciences, of which I am always suspicious. I see 25 in one group and 25 in the other and I think "Dude used his students as test subjects." https://t.co/4P1BI6qjak
La fiabilité des articles scientifiques | Hygiène Mentale & Zeste de Sci... https://t.co/Jl3EakuTyq via @YouTube
RT @Comicscience2: Pourquoi certaines études semblent parfois contradictoires ? Une vidéo du Vortex pour expliquer tout ça ! https://t.co/9…
Pourquoi certaines études semblent parfois contradictoires ? Une vidéo du Vortex pour expliquer tout ça ! https://t.co/9aL7JJtCyo https://t.co/6th8DcBYDY
La fiabilité des articles scientifiques... https://t.co/7iYOXqpspA
The positive predictive value for trials like this is often low, despite a statistically significant result For instance, in the landmark piece from John Ioannidis, "Why most published research findings are false", the PPV for a true effect is <50% https://t.co/rN2HwrNAXl 8/n
@felbalazard @ProfDFrancis @psmedic Intelligent (in both senses) reasoning would note US Gov intelligence reports have a better record for veracity, in at least one sense, than medical research. Both can be weighted appropriately, in a given context, including political influences on each. https://t.co/FYaVV8zeFP
Seems like a good time to reread this https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124#s3
The irony that Ioannidis is a co-author of this paper would be delicious but for the crazy times we are in. https://t.co/likXL1Z7cY https://t.co/uN5CszmlXa
La fiabilité des articles scientifiques | @HygieneMentale & @ZesteDeScience | Le Vortex #15 https://t.co/tx7vQJGmXX @RetractionWatch "Keeping coronavirus numbers straight: JAMA sounds an alarm": https://t.co/JvehJQjh3t
RT @jtrialerror: It is important to be aware that many published research findings are false. This depends on factors such as the ratio of…
It is important to be aware that many published research findings are false. This depends on factors such as the ratio of true to no relationships tested and the number of similar studies. John P. A. Ioannidis discusses these problems in his essay: https://t.co/ClnbEnhKS3
@Usman_skhan @poolio @hardmaru Of course, there is the "reproducibility crisis" and this classic paper: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" https://t.co/cqs6gssxij
@PabloRichly @marcellomeli1 Tal vez lo más difícil sea definir que es evidencia. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://t.co/gAQCMyTkqV https://t.co/et3xN0r9Jh
@marcellomeli1 @PabloRichly Aún teniendo tiempo es extremadamente difícil. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" https://t.co/gAQCMyTkqV https://t.co/DlIPUNcZil
RT @HygieneMentale: Comment fonctionne le système des publications scientifiques ? Comment obtenir une étude scientifique ? Est-ce payant…
@annehelen https://t.co/XH7z5uz5md
☕️ This week we'll be looking at the Simmons (2011) article on false-positive psychology and the problems that come with analytic flexibility. See you there! Wed 2/12, 3-4pm, PSH 411 Simmons (2011): https://t.co/BH4EAYK1kQ
Très instructif et très bien fait ! Merci #LeVortex La fiabilité des articles scientifiques | Hygiène Mentale & Zeste de Sci... https://t.co/7q7MsvSDJZ via @YouTube
RT @HygieneMentale: Comment fonctionne le système des publications scientifiques ? Comment obtenir une étude scientifique ? Est-ce payant…
https://t.co/i3956dJrTJ
RT @HygieneMentale: Comment fonctionne le système des publications scientifiques ? Comment obtenir une étude scientifique ? Est-ce payant…
RT @HygieneMentale: Comment fonctionne le système des publications scientifiques ? Comment obtenir une étude scientifique ? Est-ce payant…
@nielsack @palrogg Oui je connais cette "étude"... https://t.co/tx7vQJGmXX
RT @HygieneMentale: Comment fonctionne le système des publications scientifiques ? Comment obtenir une étude scientifique ? Est-ce payant…
@DIMENSION_YT @AstroVonBraun Tiens chef : https://t.co/K3qIrUQKZc En même temps t as pleins de références pour avoir des articles gratos
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://t.co/29GonTjOUZ
RT @HygieneMentale: Comment fonctionne le système des publications scientifiques ? Comment obtenir une étude scientifique ? Est-ce payant…
RT @HygieneMentale: Comment fonctionne le système des publications scientifiques ? Comment obtenir une étude scientifique ? Est-ce payant…
RT @HygieneMentale: Comment fonctionne le système des publications scientifiques ? Comment obtenir une étude scientifique ? Est-ce payant…
La fiabilité des articles scientifiques | Hygiène Mentale & Zeste de Sci... https://t.co/g1j6FLZrvx via @YouTube
La fiabilité des articles scientifiques - Le Vortex https://t.co/M5yPU1yug3
@SleuthGames @Xboxygen D'ailleurs voici une vidéo récente et sympa sur le sujet : https://t.co/jF7NUjBgGx
La fiabilité des articles scientifiques, ou comment vérifier les sources de la plupart des articles bullshit. https://t.co/BVhTivTefC Merci @MarceauGresse pour le partage !
Bon à savoir : https://t.co/nvHLK6Lw6l
RT @HygieneMentale: Comment fonctionne le système des publications scientifiques ? Comment obtenir une étude scientifique ? Est-ce payant…
@1inconnuedeplus @the_wild_bass @Crevekino @_aladex https://t.co/3SMLGe7Xmf
@Genesis_Science @AiG If anything involving creationism was true the rest of the world would actually be teaching it and your information would be making headlines clearly the material you gather has never actually been PROPERLY peer reviewed. https://t.co/rnwKJWLfrG
@ctuton1 @DavidMichaelRi8 @AiG Yeah and it’s bull shit because if this is true this would have made headlines EVERYWHERE and real scientists wouldn’t be getting the same results every time stop kidding yourself because clearly you never got your research PROPERLY PEER REVIEWED https://t.co/rnwKJWLfrG
@ctuton1 @DavidMichaelRi8 @AiG Typical instead of presenting evidence these dumbasses just go on and on how it doesn’t work with nothing to back there claims unlike REAL scientists who have! funny how articles like these aren’t peer reviewed https://t.co/rnwKJWLfrG
@SinuhesSamtal Cherry picking! Har du bevis som omkullkastar gällande klimatmodeller föreslår jag att du skriver ihop en artikel om det. Science och Nature skulle slåss om att få publicera den. Innan dess så föreslår jag att du läser t.ex. https://t.co/lPFgNzVxhE och funderar över innehållet.
The Monday group met earlier this week but the Thursday group will meet tomorrow Sept 19 and the Tuesday group will meet for the first time on Sept 24. The first paper is https://t.co/FHbz0OooEV The website has each of their meeting dates and links to the readings. 4/6
RT @The_GWF: Furthermore, it is not among our businesses to add-up false research into the PubMed ecosystem. We care about producing high-q…
Furthermore, it is not among our businesses to add-up false research into the PubMed ecosystem. We care about producing high-quality biomedical research, sound and valid, not a slippery slope full of fallacies. https://t.co/Mn28pG1uUZ https://t.co/D2RanU0jEJ
I added a video to a @YouTube playlist https://t.co/HVOWHvIFNI How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 79 Peer Review
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/figure/image?size=large&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.t004
6/ Example: why not routinely do what John Ioannidis did in his famous article, "Why Most Published Research is False"? https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
RT @realsci_DE: Meiner Wahrnehmung nach gab es 3 epochale Events. 2005: Ionnidis sagt, anhand theoretischer & mathemat. Überlegungen, dass…
Meiner Wahrnehmung nach gab es 3 epochale Events. 2005: Ionnidis sagt, anhand theoretischer & mathemat. Überlegungen, dass mind. 50% *aller* empirischen Forschung *nicht* replizierbar ist. Ioannidis (2005), Why most published research findings are false. https://t.co/7rcDy4ubbk https://t.co/S9XuIrTpZA
.@ivanoransky opens #KavliConvo with John Ioannidis's provocative "Why Most Published Research Findings are False": http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371%2fjournal.pmed.0020124
A very interesting article to read: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 … -
Why most published research findings are false bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04…
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (in the Medical Field?) | @scoopit http://sco.lt/8ghq6L
"Why Most Published Research Findings are False" (repost from a couple months ago thanks to Eric Schwitzgebel): http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124&representation=PDF
It's science. We know how to test things. Shouldn't be that most published findings are flukes. System fail. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Why most published research findings are false: http://j.mp/JSVCts - bias, bad statistics, data fudging and conflicts of interests.
PJ
RV
RF
WP
JF
KC
G
S
RR
ゆ
MT
BB
RJ
V
HY
SK
L
S
BD
EM
CE
C
I
J
DH
RD
K
WM
GT
JH
PB
IB
P
SG
JB
A
دا
GS
AA
K
L
KD
NH
KB
S
VE
TR
DS
LS
B
KN
EC
A
S
JK
?
EC