Another worrying example of bias & misuse of evidence for personal gain from a seasoned pro No nuance, no balance, & crucially no appraisal of the actual evidence + poorly written to boot. A ‘journal’ [in the loosest sense of the word] editor no less One bonus = for all to seehttps://twitter.com/whsource/status/1045047028571467776 …
-
-
For one thing, focusing on a single study done 4 decades ago rather than one of many recent systematic reviews is an interesting choice when trying to make a scientific argument
-
He also takes the common - and deceptive - tack of "but people in the 1900s ate like this and look! No heart disease" several times, without mentioning that those people didn't live long enough to develop the disease anyway!
End of conversation
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.