Via google translate: https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https://demonitor.kro-ncrv.nl/artikelen/hoe-ga-je-als-journalist-om-met-een-controversiele-wetenschappelijke-studie&edit-text=&act=url Any Dutch speakers got a better translation? Daniël Lakens is a psychologist who writes a lot about how to design and interpret studies, problems in psych research, etc. http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/ The article this is taken from is pretty annoying, and is part of an annoying series discussed here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/dutch...-objection-to-cbt-get.5521/page-2#post-101089 It sounds like Lakens may have saved it from being much worse. For some journalists, it just doesn't seem to occur to them that they should take the time to examine the evidence, and pursue the truth independently of any authority figure they can defer to. I'm sure we've been spoiled by Tuller's work on PACE, but to have journalists do a whole series on the controversies around the treatment of ME/CFS, yet seem to have so little interest in the details of the dispute, is pretty frustrating.