tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8237846547805652402.post2423033924920787627..comments2014-02-03T14:46:43.219-05:00Comments on EP-ology by Carl V. Phillips: Unhealthful News 172 - Reviews of expert analyses are not better than expert analysesCarl V Phillipshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01919902852457771666noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8237846547805652402.post-3691922891537925542011-07-05T18:30:46.355-04:002011-07-05T18:30:46.355-04:00UPDATE:
Today, one of Goldacre's colleagues at...UPDATE:<br />Today, one of Goldacre's colleagues at the Guardian, James Randerson, posted an even more thorough takedown of Goldacre et al.'s article than I did. <br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/04/ben-goldacre-study-dietary-news<br /><br />He had the advantage over me of having seen the actual data, such as it is. With that, he was able to show that the article was actually complete junk science, far worse than the majority of what certain critical pundits like to criticize. Basically, it was worthless. I will not try to summarize here, since the whole thing is worth reading if you are interested.<br /><br />It also serves as a reminder of why peer review is fairly close to useless in cases like this. As Randerson points out, the reviewers should have had access to the data, which is instantly damning, but presumably did not.Carl V Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01919902852457771666noreply@blogger.com