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

      In what way?

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    3. 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
    4. 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
    5. 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
    6. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 11 Jun 2018
      Replying to @Amelia_RH

      Much like PHE's own use of the estimate, I can see where you're coming from. My frustration is that the 95% figure is taken as writ, when PHE themselves describe it as a "communication tool"

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

      ok point taken there - and i will admit I don't know your audience, but you were repeating some arguments that came specifically from people who were rather put out when PHE contradicted them in 2014. I mean it's really unfair to reduce the review by McNeil to the Nutt study.

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

      But the figure itself, the one that has been repeated forever, came from the Nutt paper. PHE basically said "vaping looks to be safe, let's use this 95% figure because it's there and it's helpful"

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

      "Vaping looks to be safe"? They commissioned independent university researchers with established expertise in the area of tobacco and nicotine to conduct a systematic review- the kind at the top layers of that pyramid you shared. Based on that, they chose to use the number.

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

      Disagreeing with that choice is valid. Questioning the overwhelming evidence reflected in that review and the many that have since followed it - some which quantify, some which don't - is not.

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

      I mean, they specifically reference the Nutt paper as the source of the 95% claim, and more recently have said that it is not meant to be a solid figure but a teaching tool for, I imagine, precisely the reasons I mentioned in my thread

      10:58 PM - 11 Jun 2018
      • 1 Like
      • Amelia Howard
      2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        1. New conversation
        2. Amelia Howard‏ @Amelia_RH 11 Jun 2018
          Replying to @GidMK

          Yeah- I mean I don't know if we are talking past each other or if I am too focused on something that wasn't the whole of your argument (I hear a lot of BS about vaping & that paper is used as an excuse to throw a lot of babies out with bathwater by opponents to the technologies)

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

          It seemed that you were not making a general argument about how fraught quantification is in ANY policy context - but reducing the use of that figure dismiss an institutional endorsement of vaping in the UK - which came about through robust science work. If I misread, apologies

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        4. Show replies
        1. Jim Kyriakoulias‏ @meetzman 11 Jun 2018
          Replying to @GidMK @Amelia_RH

          As just a vaper, I pose this question. Is it the number (be it 95, or 60, or even 5) that is the issue, or the fact of less harm caused? Is there a magic number that differentiates levels of harm reduction? Does something 5-95% less harmful make it the deciding factor in this?

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo

      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