Thanks for this reply. But the key irrefutable mathematical facts against the inverse variance weighted random effects methods for a set of randomized clinical trials are (1) they make contradictory assumptions and (2) they apply linear weighted distribution theory in an illegitimate manner (weights are not constants to a high degree of accuracy). Any statistician, who in a situation that might involve public health policy, uses these methods in such a situation or as a reviewer who allows the use of these methods is potentially risking scientifically unsupportable inferences.
Fixed-effects are legitimate for the narrow hypothesis that the true effect sizes are zero for all studies. The resulting confidence intervals, which today are the crux of our inferences, cannot be trusted under the more general and realistic random effects scenario.
------------------------------
Jonathan Shuster
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 02-28-2026 07:41
From: Cathy Furlong
Subject: Scholars At Risk: Live Webinar: Strategies of Resistance and the Defense of Academic Freedom in Brazil
The Committee on Scientific Freedom and Human Rights is interested in announcing discussions and information on the topics of both scientific freedom and human rights. The following webinar maybe of interest to individuals. ASA is a member of Scholars At Risk.
Subject: Live Webinar: Strategies of Resistance and the Defense of Academic Freedom in Brazil
Scholars at Risk is pleased to invite you to a webinar to explore how human rights, academic, and democracy networks have fought back against systemic attacks on academic freedom. Join us to learn and raise awareness about the state of academic freedom in Brazil and beyond. Please share with your networks! |
|
|
Between 2019 and 2022, Brazil faced a severe erosion of democratic norms, marked by systematic attacks on university autonomy and the harassment of scholars. In response, human rights, academic, and democracy networks developed innovative strategies to document violations, develop collective strategies to resist and push back as well as to litigate key cases, offering a vital action framework for global audiences currently facing similar legislative and institutional pressures.
Join Scholars at Risk (SAR) and the Coalition for Academic Freedom in the Americas (CAFA) on Wednesday, March 4th at 12:00 PM EST (14:00 BRT) for a moderated discussion featuring Conrado Hübner Mendes, constitutional law expert, and Flávia Pellegrino of Pacto pela Democracia, with moderation by Kim Lane Scheppele, Professor of Sociology and International Affairs at Princeton University. Together, they will highlight transferable strategies for defending academic freedom, drawing comparative insights and practical solutions for resisting democratic backsliding. Interpretation available in English, Portuguese, and Spanish. Scholars at Risk is a founding partner of the Coalition for Academic Freedom in the Americas (CAFA). We invite you to forward this email to your colleagues in your university's Latin American Studies departments or others in your network » |
|
|
SCHOLARS AT RISK is an independent not-for-profit corporation, hosted at New York University. Our international network of institutions and individuals shares a mission to protect threatened scholars, promote academic freedom, and prevent attacks on higher education communities around the world. 411 Lafayette Street, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10003 USA Tel: 212-998-2179
scholarsatrisk@nyu.edu
www.scholarsatrisk.org
|
|
|
Scholars at Risk values your privacy and data security; you have received this email consistent with our privacy policy based on your prior consent. You can manage your preferences here or unsubscribe at any time. |
|
|
|
------------------------------
Cathy Furlong
Vice-Chair
Committee on Scientific Freedom and Human Rights
------------------------------