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 2 May 2019

      If a systematic review finds only small, poorly-done studies on a topic but they have mostly null results should it conclude #EpiTwitter

      4 replies 3 retweets 4 likes
      Show this thread
    2. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 2 May 2019

      I think this is a really interesting question. On the one hand, if there are no good studies then we may not have answered the question. On the other, if we ignore pilot/small studies, what's the point of doing them in the first place?

      2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes
      Show this thread
      Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 2 May 2019

      And if we always call for more research, where does that end? Where is the cutoff between not an answer and an answer?

      3:18 PM - 2 May 2019
      • 10 Likes
      • (((kath2cats))) 💧 Ian "Department of Diseasology" 🍩 Musgrave Fully Pfizzy Kitty Alexandra Jones Kelli Stewart މުޙައްމަދު އަޝުރަފު Mohamed Ashraf 戴天瑞 - (he/him) Tom Rex 🏳️‍🌈 Em - is fully #vaccinated 🏳️‍🌈
      6 replies 0 retweets 10 likes
        1. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 2 May 2019

          Also, should note - I'm not saying that calling for no more studies means that we think the question is closed, just that it doesn't seem worth pursuing with more research

          0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
          Show this thread
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo
        1. New conversation
        2. James Heathers‏ @jamesheathers 2 May 2019
          Replying to @GidMK

          Depends on who cares about the topic. If it's children dropping dead in the street, onwards. If it's some deeply obscure quasi-metaphorical psychological bollocks, bin it. You didn't say anything about the MECHANISM. Gimme a prior.

          1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
        3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 2 May 2019
          Replying to @jamesheathers

          I think most of the examples I've seen are unimportant possibly bollocks. I don't think I've ever seen an SR on something killing children that hasn't included bigger studies because that shit attracts funding

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. Show replies
        1. Tom Rex  🏳️‍🌈‏ @TheRealTomRex 2 May 2019
          Replying to @GidMK

          I think the answer depends on the importance of the topic. If there's only one poor study on the psychological aesthetics of Pantone 217 vs. 243, who cares? If a mediocre study suggests that methane emissions above 60° latitude are underestimated, that's a different story.

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo
        1. Dr Lea Merone MBChB (hons) MPH&TM MSc FAFPHM Ⓥ‏ @LeaMerone 2 May 2019
          Replying to @GidMK

          Well a nice example of this is vaccines and autism in the post Wakefield era. I think recent studies have still looked at this despite hundreds disproving it already. But I guess there is still need as the anti vac crowd continues to grow

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo
        1. New conversation
        2. Kylie Abbott‏ @kylie_a_abbott 2 May 2019
          Replying to @GidMK

          You need an "it depends" button!! I once saw a SR looking for associations between yoghurt and a health outcome (prospective cohort studies), concluded "More research needed" with >100,000 participants and a p-value of 0.14. At that level I think you can say "no association"

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 2 May 2019
          Replying to @kylie_a_abbott

          Nah I'm not talking about SRs with large cohorts, I'm talking about n=200 from 9 studies most of which were at high risk of bias. What then? Do we call for more research or consider the question no longer worth pursuing?

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. End of conversation
        1. Megan Davidson, Vaccinated‏ @Megnacious 2 May 2019
          Replying to @GidMK

          Depends on the plausibility, prior probability of the intervention. If zero (or very low), no more studies!

          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