# Studies do not say anything **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 26, 2024, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studies-do-not-say-anything/1002080 "2024-05-26T01:52:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2024, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studies-do-not-say-anything/1002080/3 "2024-05-26T04:23:05Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > The arrogance of so many people these days who resent and belittle experts is hard to believe, but that’s where we are. Well, so, that’s where the debate begins. First, I would submit that there is research that’s poor, that doesn’t mean what the researcher believes it to mean, and that people shouldn’t treat scientists and researchers as infallible gods. > [@Hydroxychloroquine study "does not meet the Society's expected standard."](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydroxychloroquine-study-does-not-meet-the-societys-expected-standard/851443/4): > > There is an argument that good science sets the parameters in advance and follows through with it. Fiddling with your methodology after the fact is one way to create results out of nothing, because you can find the things that was, by random happenstance, an outlier variable. Rolain’s methodology was to perform mouth swabs. He ignored people who he couldn’t swab - like people who died. That he stuck to it is, in the previous sense, good. But it is, obviously, a bad methodology. Sticking to a … As you say, that’s me in that thread - not a doctor - critiquing the research output of a doctor. Likewise, here I am complaining about the IHME prediction model of COVID fatalities (which I believed failed to incorporate lag times between case counts and fatality counts, and to assume a bell curve rather than a fast rise, slow fall curve that epidemiology models usually predict). > **[IHME Prediction](https://publius2point0.wordpress.com/2020/04/22/ihme-prediction/)** > > Patients come to a hospital and, after one week, either they go home cured (50% of the time) or they die (50% of the time). On day 1, 1 new patient arrives; on day 2, 2 new patients arrive; on day … And in other threads on other topics, I have debated the merits of research, doubting the quality of their methodology and speculating on confounders, spurious correlations, etc. How do I know that I’m qualified to do so? Am I always wrong to do this, minus an applicable degree? Can I say that public debate, hopefully populated with experts who can respond to questions and concerns, is a positive activity? Or does that spread doubt and the willingness to doubt science among those who probably shouldn’t do so? Is there any safe way to choose individual experts to follow? Can I trust Gil Carvalho? Where are the boundaries of taking in and communicating over raw research? --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studies-do-not-say-anything/1002080)._