This makes me think of Terry Pratchett's Hogfather
Hallelujah - my personal take on "real world evidence/data" (as I see it used) is that it is a euphemism for data missing not at random
today's useful tip
yep - often mentioned in the stats group I work in. We don't get it, and seeing it has been a long time we have not got it, I start to think it is simply because we are not very smart when everyone else apparently gets it
Happy reinstalling-all-your-R-packages day to all those who celebrate #rstats
I’ve seen situations in which people try to correct the scientific record and then critics act like that was superfluous or just not the right way to use one’s energy because “science is self-correcting.”
This just came to my mind
"Normalized incompetence" seems to sum up my day-to-day!
We should introduce the term “real human researchers” (RHR) to go with other nonsense phrases like “real world evidence”
Uffe Heide-Jørgensen
Uffe Heide-Jørgensen
Uffe Heide-Jørgensen
Uffe Heide-Jørgensen
Putting myself out there a bit. Honest request from an open-source developer:
Can I please ask you to encourage people you know to stop with the "any updates on this?" discussion post? Every post like that genuinely makes me die inside a little bit.
I'll try to explain in this thread. 1/
Hadley Wickham
Julia M. Rohrer
Richard Bown is 📝 writing
George Davey Smith
Particularly pleased to see two points that I strongly advocated for included in the paper:
1/ Using the term "routinely collected data" rather than "real-world evidence"...
