The reference to the fourth chapter is misleading - nowhere is there any evidence that immunity can be obtained "without risk". There isn't even evidence that it can be obtained through natural infection without SUBSTANTIAL risk
-
-
Show this thread
-
This statement, from chapter 4, is again factually incorrect. Herd immunity HAS BEEN OBSERVED in numerous instancespic.twitter.com/GUBAa4wvuA
Show this thread -
The best-known example being smallpox - due to its reasonably low attack/reproduction rates, once sufficient people in each community were vaccinated the disease disappeared
#VaccinesWorkShow this thread -
I'm not going to go over the entire thesis - I read it once, that was enough - but suffice to say that it's amazing how a piece of work that makes factually incorrect assertions minimum twice per page was approved
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sadly, the review and mentoring system, at all levels, contains vulnerabilities to human bias. Sending a manuscript/thesis to "like-thinking" reviewers is one such problem. Allowing that to happen is another.
-
I'm just astonished that at no point was there any oversight by a public health expert, nor any suggestion of medical review. It was considered only from a social theory perspective, as a model of competing interests, which is insane
- Show replies
New 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.