Yes. They cited “Unpublished studies from our laboratory” which is nothing. Being charitable, they actually did all the work and then just decided for the hell of it to not publish.
As I said in my post:
Their model is convincing enough: nicotine activates certain signaling pathways which starts a cascade effect causing out of control cell proliferation (aka cancer). But the first domino in that chain is literally “trust me, bro” with no published experimental data.
Usually, as part of the scientific method, one conducts preliminary testing and uses that as a prompt for further research. Things like a two tailed t-test, for example, can’t tell you the direction of change but only that there is a change.
Or, you notice a pattern while doing other research, and then start another experiment to do proper statistical analysis.
The claim of “faking research” is an extremely serious one, and may be considered libelous.
Regarding nicotine only being mildly harmful, would you care to address any of the numerous studies I linked earlier to address that claim?
Yes. They cited “Unpublished studies from our laboratory” which is nothing. Being charitable, they actually did all the work and then just decided for the hell of it to not publish.
As I said in my post:
Usually, as part of the scientific method, one conducts preliminary testing and uses that as a prompt for further research. Things like a two tailed t-test, for example, can’t tell you the direction of change but only that there is a change.
Or, you notice a pattern while doing other research, and then start another experiment to do proper statistical analysis.
The claim of “faking research” is an extremely serious one, and may be considered libelous.
Regarding nicotine only being mildly harmful, would you care to address any of the numerous studies I linked earlier to address that claim?