Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
GidMK's profile
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Verified account
@GidMK

Tweets

Health NerdVerified account

@GidMK

Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him

Sydney, New South Wales
theguardian.com/profile/gideon…
Joined November 2015

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 11 Jun 2018
      Replying to @GidMK @Amelia_RH

      Fascinatingly, nowhere does anyone mention that the figure for benefit to the individual from the Nutt paper was actually 60%, not 95%. Given that PHE cite this directly as their source for the estimate, perhaps we should all be using the 60% figure instead?

      3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    2. Amelia Howard‏ @Amelia_RH 11 Jun 2018
      Replying to @GidMK

      We should base estimates on the evidence that is available and applies. 95% figure aside - you do understand that it's not just studies of vaping that apply to the question of risk & we have an enormous amount of consensual science on nicotine and smoke that applies here, Right?

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 11 Jun 2018
      Replying to @Amelia_RH

      My entire "smug" thread was on the 95% figure, it's well-established that non-smoke alternatives are likely less harmful that was ~literally~ my second tweet

      2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
    4. Amelia Howard‏ @Amelia_RH 11 Jun 2018
      Replying to @GidMK

      Amelia Howard Retweeted Health Nerd

      And then you said this:https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1006320985300033536 …

      Amelia Howard added,

      Health NerdVerified account @GidMK
      Let's set the scene. It's quite hard to estimate the health impacts of vaping vs smoking. There are a number of reasons for this, but mostly because lung cancer and COPD take a while to develop and vaping is relatively new
      Show this thread
      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    5. Amelia Howard‏ @Amelia_RH 11 Jun 2018
      Replying to @Amelia_RH @GidMK

      Can you see how this might be confusing to some?

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    6. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 11 Jun 2018
      Replying to @Amelia_RH

      In what way?

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    7. Amelia Howard‏ @Amelia_RH 11 Jun 2018
      Replying to @GidMK

      There are some unknowns to vaping. To suggest that these unknowns could plausibly manifest in the kind of disease burden of cigarettes - and to suggest that only time can provide an answer to this, just isn't true.

      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
    8. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 11 Jun 2018
      Replying to @Amelia_RH

      That's not what I was arguing and something that I specifically repudiated several times. I guess I could've added the repudiation on every tweet, but I always assume people will read the whole thing before attacking me

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    9. Amelia Howard‏ @Amelia_RH 11 Jun 2018
      Replying to @GidMK

      What irritated me about your rant was anyone who came upon it who didn't have a good grasp of the evidence or terrain of expertise could easily come away thinking that the science around relative risk is far less certain than it in fact is. The context of my frustration is this:pic.twitter.com/XZ3vrVhtc2

      2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
    10. Amelia Howard‏ @Amelia_RH 11 Jun 2018
      Replying to @Amelia_RH @GidMK

      Taking issue with an estimate (that could indeed be wrong) is one thing - but the fact is that if we consider the body of evidence that applies (which extends beyond ecig studies), 95% likely OVER estimates individ.risk. If that was your point, it was lost in a festival of nuance

      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
      Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 11 Jun 2018
      Replying to @Amelia_RH

      Putting a solid numerical figure on a hazy risk estimate like that is an extremely fraught task, and the idea that you can then take the number and use it as a given is, to me, simply bad science We don't say "seatbelts are 99% safer than the alternative", for example

      10:28 PM - 11 Jun 2018
      • 1 Like
      • Dr Robert O'Connor
      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        1. New conversation
        2. Jim McDonald‏ @whycherrywhy 12 Jun 2018
          Replying to @GidMK @Amelia_RH

          Jim McDonald Retweeted Health Nerd

          The harms of smoking are mostly specific to combustion, and that is the primary point that deniers deliberately ignore. "We just don't know enough" scares countless smokers from vaping. Half of them will die.https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1006407963538386944 …

          Jim McDonald added,

          Health NerdVerified account @GidMK
          Replying to @Amelia_RH
          Putting a solid numerical figure on a hazy risk estimate like that is an extremely fraught task, and the idea that you can then take the number and use it as a given is, to me, simply bad science We don't say "seatbelts are 99% safer than the alternative", for example
          1 reply 2 retweets 1 like
        3. Jim McDonald‏ @whycherrywhy 12 Jun 2018
          Replying to @whycherrywhy @GidMK @Amelia_RH

          We know that there is no combustion. That means no tar and no carbon monoxide. What are the other mechanisms of harm that could possibly put vaping even in the same ballpark as smoking? There aren't any.

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. End of conversation

      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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2021 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info