I find this concerning. Here's the credentials of

I find this concerning. Here's the credentials of the author, Nicole Fisher;

is the President and CEO at HHR Strategies, a health care and human rights focused advising firm. Additionally, she is a Senior Policy Advisor and expert on health economic analyses mainly focusing on Medicare, Medicaid and health reform, specifically as they impact vulnerable populations. Nicole runs a Health Innovation and Policy page at Forbes.com highlighting and advising companies, ideas and people that are changing the health care landscape and curates a monthly health dinner series: Chicago HealthCare Dinners. She is also currently pursuing her PhD at the University of North Carolina in the Health Policy and Management Department. Her writing has appeared in other publications such as Health Affairs, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Journal, Wright on Health, The Health Care Blog and Health Services Research, and her talks can be found on the United Nations website. Before pursuing her PhD in health policy, Nicole earned her Master’s degree in Public Policy from the University of Chicago and her undergraduate degree from the University of Missouri. Her health care and policy work at those institutions had an emphasis on underserved populations, women's and children’s issues. She presides on several Boards for domestic and international health organizations and frequently speaks on health reform, innovation and human rights.

And then she posts this in reply to the previous comment I posted.

"Excellent questions. I do know the multi-year panel study is being constructed. However, one of my biggest fears and certain for debate is the subsequent – and substantial – impact of false positives. I’m looking forward to seeing how this plays out."


I just find it suspicious that a person with her education, background, and expertise would actually write this article this way, let alone respond to a comment in the manner which she did unless she's biased. You would think she would know a thing or two about p values and not be so quick in calling into question the false positives/negatives slant on things.

Upon scanning the previous articles she's written I think I get it now. She prefers to just spew word vomit, avoid actual research, and pretty much just copy and paste from others articles. Thankfully she's a Senior Policy Advisor, hahahhaa....joke.