@drpaulmorgan @silv24 No it doesn't. If you want to claim 'medical evidence' you'll get no objection from me. Just don't call it science.
-
-
Replying to @C7RKY1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @drpaulmorgan
@drpaulmorgan@silv24 No, it really isn't science, no matter how much you might like to wish it is. That, is my very point.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY@drpaulmorgan@silv24 Sure it's science. Hypothesis, experiment, analysis, peer review, publish, lather, rinse, repeat.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BestInFlightLDJ
@BestInFlightLDJ@drpaulmorgan@silv24 Not if you selectively only publish the 50% of results that suit you. Esp when looking for outliers.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY@BestInFlightLDJ@silv24 A claim for which there’s been no evidence presented to substantiate.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drpaulmorgan
@drpaulmorgan@BestInFlightLDJ@silv24 But you are also unable to demonstrate that 100% of them have been published. So not science then...?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY@BestInFlightLDJ@silv24 Maybe not perfect science, but science nevertheless. Clinical trials are never absolute but use 1/21 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drpaulmorgan
@drpaulmorgan@BestInFlightLDJ@silv24 I think this is the heart of where we disagree - 'not perfect science' just means not science for me.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY@drpaulmorgan@silv24 In your view then, the only "perfect science" is non-relativistic physics. Otherwise there is probability.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
@BestInFlightLDJ @drpaulmorgan @silv24 I'd be happy with transparency. I'm a fan of science. But only the type that's open to scrutiny.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.