Andrew Huberman· PhD
He wrote a paper in 2005 with a title why most published biomedical uh papers are false.
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
He wrote a paper in 2005 with a title why most published biomedical uh papers are false.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
why most published clinical research is untrue
the title of the paper is something to the effect of why most published clinical research is untrue i mean that's the gist of it