6 Comments
User's avatar
Dr Ah Kahn Syed's avatar

For those who are not friendly to code.. this paper is a travesty of science, using a curated dataset that ends at a certain time whereas the paper itself claims a totally different end date. Essentially showing that the authors had no idea what they were doing and I would bet that this whole paper is ghost written for them.

They provide scripts (that they likely don't understand) but won't provide the data on which those scripts are supposed to be run, and have a "5 year" block on that data. Well I can tell you that any privacy concerns blocking that data release now will still exist in 5 years, so that is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in a paper.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 3
Comment deleted
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 5Edited
Comment deleted
OpenVAET's avatar

Please stick to one link at a time, in line with the article you comment on ; my patience for spammy comments is decreasing.

User's avatar
Comment removed
Mar 5Edited
Comment removed
OpenVAET's avatar

I'm not asking you to do one liners, but you spam the same link up to 7 times, without comment, and while it has no relation whatsoever with the article you're commenting on. This is just trashing the comment section.

Thanks for your understanding.

Fred's avatar

Read the Pfizer trial data.

Fred's avatar

I know. Pre-empting the arguments. Thank you!