Quote Originally Posted by frogmiller View Post
Regardless whether it’s weak science or not. And your scientist who is an expert in communication puts it in another light the fact is that it has still been given the go ahead to be published and reported in the national press.
The point is that it hasn't been reported in the national press - an interpretation of it has, which bears no resemblance to what is (and isn't) in the actual paper.

Who should we trust to interpret the paper? A holder of a PhD in Molecular Biology or a click-bait hunting journalist? That shouldn't be a difficult question to answer.

You could read the paper yourself - complete with the header now attached by the BMJ in which it calls out the mis-reporting of it in the press