I still can't quite believe that people are arguing that world-famous academics with constant media appearances and dozens of publications THIS YEAR have been silenced because they got mean emails and tweets
-
-
Barf. Also, they added—but only after publication—that the authors of the piece on Ioannidis are longtime collaborators of his.pic.twitter.com/7emZOkjeMn
-
And they act as if Ioannidis was some innocent bystander just asking for more data. The precautionary principle completely eludes them. Enormous numbers of human lives are at stake, but yes, let's lowball the possible damage & sit on our thumbs while we wait for more data.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is the article that came out today that is causing the uproar. I'm just an educated, casual observer, but I've seen this play out for months. It's shameful, really, but no surprise considering the arrogance of many in the medical professions.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-covid-science-wars1/ …
-
@SciAm has now posted eight paragraphs of clarifications to the Ioannidis apologia--more paragraphs than in the original Ioannidis apologia:pic.twitter.com/xyv2TYHrq6
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
ah. science is a full contact sport. If you're going to try to catch a ball over the middle, you gotta expect to be hit (sorry, US football reference)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Where is Ionaddis new culpa with his original 10k death count prediction? Dude just Poo poi’s right bracketing issues in one sentence and then took a middle of the pack calculation
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is not the only one ... https://twitter.com/vprasadmdmph/status/1333539535985074176?s=21 … https://twitter.com/carlheneghan/status/1329861848573861888 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
*May have been zero individuals infected *in the Santa Barbara sample*. The way this is written, along with next sentence, suggests the author thinks they meant zero cases *in the world*. And, the math wasn’t that hard to see why the critics were correct about this analysis.pic.twitter.com/1FeLUMWJpd
-
Yeah. And somehow a stat valid argument is absurd as it’s crouched in math. In addition, the article says his IFR estimate was similar CDC and WHO estimates, but they used an earlier estimate that was revised upward months ago. That was basically a fluff piece.
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.