It wasn't a study, it was more like a scientific review (a topic specific report). That doesn't make it not useful. It was incredibly well sourced and the argument was sound.

It was more like a gathering of many studies into one place. Anyone who ignored such a well put together argument with that level of sourcing of real scientific studies without addressing the specifics of the evidence or argument is, well, a DS shill.

We used to call this journalism, in this case by a PhD in cardiopulmonary physiology speaking on a topic for which they are considered by the community to be an expert. Now it is something that is forced to be retracted.

It wasn't a study, it was more like a scientific review (a topic specific report). That doesn't make it not useful. It was incredibly well sourced and the argument was sound.

It was more like a gathering of many studies into one place. Anyone who ignored such a well put together argument with that level of sourcing of real scientific studies is, well, a DS shill.

We used to call this journalism, in this case by a PhD in cardiopulmonary physiology speaking on a topic for which they are considered by the community to be an expert. Now it is something that is forced to be retracted..

It wasn't a study, it was more like a scientific review (a topic specific report). That doesn't make it not useful. It was incredibly well sourced and the argument was sound.

It was more like a gathering of many studies into one place. Anyone who ignored such a well put together argument with that level of sourcing of real scientific studies is, well, a shill.

We used to call this journalism, in this case by a PhD in cardiopulmonary physiology speaking on a topic for which they are considered by the community to be an expert. Now it is something that is forced to be retracted.

It wasn't a study, it was more like a scientific review (a topic specific report). That doesn't make it not useful. It was incredibly well sourced and the argument was sound.

It was more like a gathering of many studies into one place. Anyone who ignored such a well put together argument with that level of sourcing of real scientific studies is, well, a shill.

We used to call this journalism, in this case by a PhD in cardiopulmonary physiology speaking on a topic for which they are considered by the community to be an expert. Now it is something that is forced to be retracted.