Started reading and immediately felt embarrassed that I hadn’t noticed the screaming flaws you so eloquently pointed out. I guess I thought, probably like very many others, that this was fairly solid data strongly demonstrating that clusters of symptoms were so heterogeneous that we needed to bring into question current diagnostic practices. But the big, glaring problem that you’ve pointed out is that the raw data can’t really be regarded as data at all. The randomness of the “results” is what one would expect when the input is so meaningless. We’ve got to get better training to researchers, and more skilled peer review generally to prevent this ostensibly clever bunk making it to publication and wreaking havoc.
Started reading and immediately felt embarrassed that I hadn’t noticed the screaming flaws you so eloquently pointed out. I guess I thought, probably like very many others, that this was fairly solid data strongly demonstrating that clusters of symptoms were so heterogeneous that we needed to bring into question current diagnostic practices. But the big, glaring problem that you’ve pointed out is that the raw data can’t really be regarded as data at all. The randomness of the “results” is what one would expect when the input is so meaningless. We’ve got to get better training to researchers, and more skilled peer review generally to prevent this ostensibly clever bunk making it to publication and wreaking havoc.