How science corrects itself: a short series

A patient-commissioned paper that shows its own corrections — including one where we got a study backwards.

Most advocacy writing presents conclusions. This short series does the opposite: it shows where our own reading was wrong, how we caught it, and why a claim rests on less evidence than it sounds.

1. We got the milnacipran result backwards — here’s the fix
2. Single study, big claims: why n=16 matters
3. The ME/CFS research landscape, mapped
4. Where our evidence is thin: a tour of the weak spots

The thread: a document that cannot show its errors cannot be trusted with its conclusions.