@EricTopol @MaximeTaquet @UniofOxford Dr Topol, can you explain why people write things like "children were not at increased risk" when the data presented are ambiguous and could be consistent with children being at increased risk (albeit limited magnitude), and further how does this pass peer review?
@EricTopol @MaximeTaquet @UniofOxford Topol 博士，您能解释一下为什么当所提供的数据模棱两可并且可能与儿童风险增加（尽管幅度有限）一致时，人们会写“儿童没有增加风险”之类的东西，以及如何进一步说明如何这是否通过了同行评审？