@HannaIsotalus @Neuro_Skeptic Suggesting the intervention isn't fully understood? Which implies risk, from my perspective. Disclosable risk.
-
-
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY@Neuro_Skeptic we might not fully understand what the mechanism is doesn't mean we can't know the drug to be (relatively) safe 2/21 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hisotalus
@HannaIsotalus
@Neuro_Skeptic I'm afraid I've a real problem with the so-called 'scientific' underpinnings of our safety/efficacy evidence >1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY @HannaIsotalus@Neuro_Skeptic I'm a fan of science but from what I've learned, I see v little scientific about the process at all tbh2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @hisotalus
@HannaIsotalus
@Neuro_Skeptic Sure. There are just too many weaknesses for me, any one of which may be enough to produce erroneous results >1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@HannaIsotalus
@Neuro_Skeptic 1 Trial design limitations 2 Changing outcomes measured post-trial 3 Unconscious bias 4 Peer review failings >1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @C7RKY
@HannaIsotalus
@Neuro_Skeptic 5 Failure to register trials 6 Failure to publish trials That last one alone is sufficient, imho Any thoughts?6 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY@Neuro_Skeptic But yes: We need so much more transparency than we have now. (sorry about the million tweets!)1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @hisotalus
@HannaIsotalus
@Neuro_Skeptic Don't worry. :) I'm always happy to learn what other people think, no matter how many tweets it takes...1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
@C7RKY @HannaIsotalus @Neuro_Skeptic Transparency is the key. Science *demands* it. In fact without it, it's not science in my book, tbh.
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.