Vagus Nerve Stimulation Improves Severe Depression by 70%, Major US Trial Finds
(www.sciencealert.com)
It doesnt matter if they paid for it, if the results end up being true. What I am looking for is criticism of the methods that invalidate the results. Are there any?
Counter point, "fat makes you fat," "sugar is necessary for a good diet," "fluoride in drinking water improves tooth health," "leaded gasoline is harmless," "leaded paint is safe," etc. Many of these were held "scientifically true" for years and had plenty of "peer-reviewed" science behind that assertion.
Except it wasn't really peer-reviewed. And it was never scientifically proven. Despite the hundreds of research papers that all "passed" peer review.
That's why researchers now have to declare their financial sponsorships in honest science journals, because it automatically means whatever results they're claiming should not be trusted until peers without any financial incentive review the findings. This claim has not been reviewed in that way, so this assertion has the same value as a random lemmy comment.