Yeah, this article generated a bit of a media flurry at the time, and after looking into it I wouldn't be surprised if that was its primary purpose.
It has about 50 citations, but I'm not keen to wade through them and see if any actually give substantial support or criticism of the study.
Yeah, this article generated a bit of a media flurry at the time, and after looking into it I wouldn't be surprised if that was its primary purpose.
It has about 50 citations, but I'm not keen to wade through them and see if any actually give substantial support or criticism of the study.
There were red-flags all over this.
I was coming here to call it out, glad you already did.
In general I don't think any studies that have not been replicated, are any better than fortune-telling.
You can make them say anything you want to hear.
Peer-review or GTFO.