<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Yizahi</author><text>You also cut the article to fit your point. E.g. full text regarding 574 participants:&lt;p&gt;=================================== quote&lt;p&gt;But many of the trial’s 574 participants reported having visual aberrations and dry eyes before surgery, and the study concluded that Lasik slightly reduced the prevalence of these problems.&lt;p&gt;Three months after surgery,  however, glare, halos and double vision were common, affecting 50 to 60 percent of all patients, with up to 5 percent characterizing them as “very” or “extremely” bothersome.&lt;p&gt;Even after six months, some 41 percent of patients reported visual aberrations, with nearly 2 percent — or one in 50 — saying the symptoms presented “a lot of difficulty” or “so much difficulty that I can no longer do some of my usual activities.” And one-quarter of the patients followed six months had mild to severe dry eyes.&lt;p&gt;=================================== end quote&lt;p&gt;Note that wording here is unclear, because &amp;quot;many&amp;quot; is not quantified and we don&amp;#x27;t have percentage change over time here. Did it increase or not and by how much. But due to this it is possible to interpret this part however your want - that lasik made things worse or that it didn&amp;#x27;t.</text><parent_chain><item><author>rm999</author><text>As a subscriber I love the New York Times, but like many articles in the Wellness section this is low quality.&lt;p&gt;The article starts off with:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;A recent clinical trial  by the F.D.A. suggests that the complications experienced by Mr. Ramirez  are not uncommon. Nearly half of all people who had healthy eyes before Lasik developed visual aberrations for the first time after the procedure, the trial found.&lt;p&gt;And then five minutes of reading later leads to this valuable insight:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;But many of the trial’s 574 participants reported having visual aberrations and dry eyes before surgery, and the study concluded that Lasik slightly reduced the prevalence of these problems.&lt;p&gt;Why... didn&amp;#x27;t they put that in the same paragraph? The title of the article leads me to believe this obfuscation was on purpose.&lt;p&gt;Then, a few minutes later into the article, they state:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;The study’s lead author ... said the researchers had concluded that the multimillion dollar trial was too small to produce meaningful results, and that the purpose of the study had shifted from determining how many patients have problems functioning to developing a questionnaire that might be used in future research.&lt;p&gt;Ugh. I just spent 10 minutes reading an article formed around a flawed study that contradicts the title. Filled with circumstantial evidence and discussion about clearly biased people (like the guy with seemingly no credentials who runs lasikcomplications.com).</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Lasik’s Risks Are Coming into Sharper Focus</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/well/lasik-complications-vision.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>forapurpose</author><text>For anyone who hasn&amp;#x27;t read the article, the parent is very misleading. The article presents at least half a dozen studies, interviews at least 20 people, and their list of credentials is exceptional.[0]&lt;p&gt;In this case at least, it&amp;#x27;s not the Times&amp;#x27; research that is &amp;#x27;low quality&amp;#x27;.&lt;p&gt;[0] I copied and pasted the credentialed people quoted in the article below; I only made it 80% of the way through and then realized it had become absurd:&lt;p&gt;Diana Zuckerman, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research in Washington&lt;p&gt;Dr. Eric Donnenfeld, who was Mr. Puglisi’s surgeon and a past president of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery&lt;p&gt;global medical director for a large laser eye-surgery provider&lt;p&gt;Researchers at Ohio State University&lt;p&gt;one surgeon’s 2017 analysis of more recent data&lt;p&gt;Morris Waxler, a retired senior F.D.A. official ... [and] former chief of the diagnostic and surgical devices branch in the F.D.A.’s division of ophthalmic devices&lt;p&gt;Dr. Cynthia MacKay [ophthalmologist]&lt;p&gt;Dr. John Vukich, chair of the American Society for Cataract and Refractive Surgery’s refractive clinical surgery committee&lt;p&gt;Dr. Malvina Eydelman, director of the division of ophthalmic and ear, nose and throat devices at the F.D.A.’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health&lt;p&gt;Dr. Anat Galor, an associate professor of clinical ophthalmology at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at the University of Miami.&lt;p&gt;Dr. Pedram Hamrah, director of research at the New England Eye Center at Tufts Medical Center</text><parent_chain><item><author>rm999</author><text>As a subscriber I love the New York Times, but like many articles in the Wellness section this is low quality.&lt;p&gt;The article starts off with:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;A recent clinical trial  by the F.D.A. suggests that the complications experienced by Mr. Ramirez  are not uncommon. Nearly half of all people who had healthy eyes before Lasik developed visual aberrations for the first time after the procedure, the trial found.&lt;p&gt;And then five minutes of reading later leads to this valuable insight:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;But many of the trial’s 574 participants reported having visual aberrations and dry eyes before surgery, and the study concluded that Lasik slightly reduced the prevalence of these problems.&lt;p&gt;Why... didn&amp;#x27;t they put that in the same paragraph? The title of the article leads me to believe this obfuscation was on purpose.&lt;p&gt;Then, a few minutes later into the article, they state:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;The study’s lead author ... said the researchers had concluded that the multimillion dollar trial was too small to produce meaningful results, and that the purpose of the study had shifted from determining how many patients have problems functioning to developing a questionnaire that might be used in future research.&lt;p&gt;Ugh. I just spent 10 minutes reading an article formed around a flawed study that contradicts the title. Filled with circumstantial evidence and discussion about clearly biased people (like the guy with seemingly no credentials who runs lasikcomplications.com).</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Lasik’s Risks Are Coming into Sharper Focus</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/well/lasik-complications-vision.html</url></story>