He is .27% as smart and clever as he thinks he is.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s embarrassing.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is the study that is referred to with an inferred IFR of 0.27%https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1283232023402868737?s=20 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
You are missing the point if you think the tweet has to to with IFR.
@dr_dmorgan even explained it to you, but sometimes feedback is hard to hear. -
Well, I personally try to be courteous online. I have clearly been very critical of one paper - because it is extremely flawed - but I've certainly never stated or implied that Ioannidis is 'satan', simply that he is wrong
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Is Vinay really trying to say that just because the there’s a study with a number similar to JI’s... that somehow his terrible methods are now vindicated?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Prasad's basically tone trolling and cherry-picking research. This is the same thing that's been done to climate scientists, vaccine scientists, etc. when they correct ideologically-motivated contrarians. Row 7: https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1259267627471507456 …pic.twitter.com/PMEHXOb674
-
So what's happening to you,
@GidMK, is basically a form of what happened to@dana1981,@johnfocook, etc. earlier this year. Some people just don't like it when inaccurate information is called what it is. https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1229795398950236160 … https://skepticalscience.com/climate-misinformation-accountability.html …pic.twitter.com/jzSpxE9vxj
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.