This is an adult response. This is how methodological critique should be answered. Feldman acknowledged the legitimate reporting and labeling problems, quantified their practical impact, showed that the core result survives the corrections he is making, and then tested the critic’s standards for even application. Spot on.
There's a senior engineer I know who I was thinking of when putting this article together. He was extremely helpful early in my career at understanding risk, opportunity cost, etc -- and he would have been such a fantastic scientist (though that would be a huge pay cut).
I have a dept of gratitude to possibly the same person of which you speak. I've followed your work on the Cholesterol Code for some time now. As someone who fits the lean mass hyper-responder pattern myself, it’s been genuinely helpful in making sense of my own data instead of forcing it into older assumptions. Thanks for your diligence and intellectual honesty.
So after all this, the primary conclusions still hold up?
Sounds like it's not fatally flawed at all. You are being nice, because it sounds an awful lot like hyperbole from John and is hard to take serious - which is a shame as he has some decent and helpful feedback obviously.
But of course, those parading around John's video are all entirely repeating the "fatally flawed" nonsense.
This is why the Risk Matrix often comes up various analyses -- particularly with engineering. Often different people size problems differently based on where they are coming from -- but it's helpful to get both the probability and severity onto a board to at least make relative comparisons.
I other words, John selected a single, specific study so his analysis would fit his point of view and thought you would take what he said at face value because he is a data analyst after all. Kudos to you for your measured and factual response.
For what it's worth, I think John has provided useful feedback for our preprint, as discussed in the article (even if we may disagree on frequency & severity). But it's true where taking a position of enforcing standards, consistency becomes paramount, particularly regarding studies being selected for comparison.
I agree he provided useful feedback. Regardless, if he was an honest broker, he would and should have applied the consistent standard. Had you not pointed out the selective use of the singular study which didn't meet the consistent standard, it could have done some damage and might have led to the retraction of your paper altogether. I would call that selective 'science' which really is a discredit to John's integrity, IMO.
I would think that this is exactly the type of response Mr. Feldman is looking for by engaging in the preprint process. John Slough's feedback will only strengthen Dave's paper and his resolve moving forward, and John has pointed out some minor issues that Dave has now updated. That, coupled with Dave's mature and reasoned response, is a win. I look forward to the peer review.
This is an adult response. This is how methodological critique should be answered. Feldman acknowledged the legitimate reporting and labeling problems, quantified their practical impact, showed that the core result survives the corrections he is making, and then tested the critic’s standards for even application. Spot on.
There's a senior engineer I know who I was thinking of when putting this article together. He was extremely helpful early in my career at understanding risk, opportunity cost, etc -- and he would have been such a fantastic scientist (though that would be a huge pay cut).
I have a dept of gratitude to possibly the same person of which you speak. I've followed your work on the Cholesterol Code for some time now. As someone who fits the lean mass hyper-responder pattern myself, it’s been genuinely helpful in making sense of my own data instead of forcing it into older assumptions. Thanks for your diligence and intellectual honesty.
Thank you for the very kind words, Terry Agar 🙏
Thank you for your very important work. I will continue following closely and with great interest.
So after all this, the primary conclusions still hold up?
Sounds like it's not fatally flawed at all. You are being nice, because it sounds an awful lot like hyperbole from John and is hard to take serious - which is a shame as he has some decent and helpful feedback obviously.
But of course, those parading around John's video are all entirely repeating the "fatally flawed" nonsense.
This is why the Risk Matrix often comes up various analyses -- particularly with engineering. Often different people size problems differently based on where they are coming from -- but it's helpful to get both the probability and severity onto a board to at least make relative comparisons.
I other words, John selected a single, specific study so his analysis would fit his point of view and thought you would take what he said at face value because he is a data analyst after all. Kudos to you for your measured and factual response.
For what it's worth, I think John has provided useful feedback for our preprint, as discussed in the article (even if we may disagree on frequency & severity). But it's true where taking a position of enforcing standards, consistency becomes paramount, particularly regarding studies being selected for comparison.
I agree he provided useful feedback. Regardless, if he was an honest broker, he would and should have applied the consistent standard. Had you not pointed out the selective use of the singular study which didn't meet the consistent standard, it could have done some damage and might have led to the retraction of your paper altogether. I would call that selective 'science' which really is a discredit to John's integrity, IMO.
I would think that this is exactly the type of response Mr. Feldman is looking for by engaging in the preprint process. John Slough's feedback will only strengthen Dave's paper and his resolve moving forward, and John has pointed out some minor issues that Dave has now updated. That, coupled with Dave's mature and reasoned response, is a win. I look forward to the peer review.
Very well said, Terry Agar 🙏
*In..
Headwinds persist. Keep up the good work!
“The science” has never been less credible than since March 2020.