Lol, I'm just loving the idea that you feel the need to lecture epidemiologists about confounding, as if it is something that we have never heard of or considered before
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
How about this. I've written, oh, around 100,000 words on confounding over the last few years. Have a read of some of that, and then get back to me about whether it's a bit funny that you brought it up as a novel thought that I probably hadn't consideredhttps://gidmk.medium.com/
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I mean, either I'm defensive or you cannot recognize sarcasm when it is hilariously obvious



1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @Montaigne01 and
How about this - the least impressive form of argument is false intellectualism, and retreating behind nonsensical statements simply because you dislike the tone of your opponent. I did not make an argument from authority, I simply found your point obvious
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Lol mate, the point is that saying "you need to consider confounding" to an epidemiologist is a bit like saying "you should consider algebra" to a mathematician, or "physics is important" to an engineer
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Well, you've gone from arrogant to rude, so I must bid you adieu
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.