Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
This paper gets cited a lot in the pop-science world. It's good, very interesting, but also frequently misinterpreted and thrown around obscure internet threads as evidence that (vaccines aren't safe|big pharma is bad|academia is a waste of taxpayer money|etc). FWIW, this has been the best layman's explanation of this paper that I've come across: TL;DR: Small studies are more prone to error. Picking any one study at random means you'll probably be wrong. Weighting them in context of that field of research can help. We need more large studies.