Retracted, with a note that says "we believe that all the key findings of the paper with regards to co-authorship between junior and senior researchers are still valid". Isn't it important to discuss the many points on which the paper is incorrect?

1. The gender analysis was "only meant to be exploratory” and used techniques that “cannot be claimed to establish causality” but causal inferences were made anyway.
Causal claims were justified by pointing out that other people do it too. "While this technique does not establish the existence of a causal effect, it is commonly used to infer causality from observational data."

More from Health

this simple, counter narrative fact keeps cropping up all over the world.

hospital and ICU utilization has been and remains low this year.

it's terribly curious that so few of these monitoring tools provide historical baselines.

getting them is like pulling teeth.


we might think of this as an oversight until you see stuff like this:

this woman was arrested for filming and sharing the fact that their are empty hospitals in the UK.

that's full blown soviet. what possible honest purpose does that

this is the action of a police state and a propaganda ministry, not a well intentioned government and a public heath agency.

"we cannot let people see the truth for fear they might base their actions on real facts" is not much of a mantra for just governance.


90% full ICU sounds scary until you realize that 90-100% full is normal in flu season.

staffed ICU beds are expensive to leave empty. it's like flying with 15% of the plane empty. hospitals don't do that.

and all US hospitals are mandated to be able to flex to 120% ICU.

the US is currently at historically low ICU utilization for this time of year.

61% is "you're all going to go out of business" territory as is 66% full hospital use.

can you blame them for mining CARES act money? they'll die without it.
No-regret #hydrogen:
Charting early steps for H₂ infrastructure in Europe.

👉Summary of conclusions of a new study by @AgoraEW @AFRY_global @Ma_Deutsch @gnievchenko (1/17)
https://t.co/YA50FA57Em


The idea behind this study is that future hydrogen demand is highly uncertain and we don’t want to spend tens of billions of euros to repurpose a network which won’t be needed. For instance, hydrogen in ground transport is a hotly debated topic
https://t.co/RlnqDYVzpr (2/17)

Similar things can be said about heat. 40% of today’s industrial natural gas use in the EU goes to heat below 100°C and therefore is within range of electric heat pumps – whose performance factors far exceed 100%. (3/17)


Even for higher temperatures, a range of power-to-heat (PtH) options can be more energy-efficient than hydrogen and should be considered first. Available PtH technologies can cover all temperature levels needed in industrial production (e.g. electric arc furnace: 3500°C). (4/17)


In our view, hydrogen use for feedstock and chemical reactions is the only inescapable source of industrial hydrogen demand in Europe that does not lend itself to electrification. Examples include ammonia, steel, and petrochemical industries. (5/17)
Now you know I love to sh-t in Harvard. But I also like accuracy. So I decided to go look at Harvard’s catalog to see its lack of military history that this article describes (they only teach history of pets it claims) and what I found shocked me! Shocked me! A thread: 1/


First off, Harvard students literally have multiple sections of military history that they can take listed. (It appears these ones are taught at MIT, so they might have to walk down the street for these) but... 2/


Say they want to stay on campus...they can only take numerous classes on war and diplomacy...3/


They have an entire class on Yalta. That’s right. An entire class on Yalta. 4/


But wait! There is more! They can take the British Empire, The Fall of the Roman Empire for those wanting traditional topics... 5/

You May Also Like