This is a complete misrepresentation of both what I said, and the contents of the paper, @BallouxFrancois.
Nowhere did I call for “mass-anal swabbing.”
Rather, I suggested it may have a role to play in improving research.
I request you retract your comments and apologise.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @BallouxFrancois
Dr Zoë Hyde Retweeted Dr Zoë Hyde
I deleted the tweet because I was attacked by trolls. I subsequently wrote a new one, clearly indicating I was referring to this kind of testing in the research setting. You are misrepresenting what I said. You know this, because you clearly read the paper. This is defamatory.https://twitter.com/DrZoeHyde/status/1365543779885670401 …
Dr Zoë Hyde added,
Dr Zoë Hyde @DrZoeHyde(17/22) I had to delete this tweet, because an army of trolls started retweeting it. It was about this study:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2020.1771219 …
Nasal swabs can be negative, so faecal testing might improve detection in household contact studies.
Thread resumes:
https://twitter.com/drzoehyde/status/1365292507056144391?s=21 …Show this thread27 replies 16 retweets 270 likes -
Replying to @DrZoeHyde @BallouxFrancois
Yes it is rather remarkable the lengths people are going to misinterpret what you said. Impressive intellectual dishonesty
4 replies 5 retweets 88 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @BallouxFrancois @DrZoeHyde
It was a thread about bias in research and the issues with population prevalence estimates. I think it is perfectly clear what was meant, although I'm not really surprised any more at academic incivility on Twitter/elsewhere
2 replies 2 retweets 41 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @BallouxFrancois @DrZoeHyde
So, just to clarify, your response to the possibility of a claim was to RT an anonymous twitter account with a single paragraph of a scientific paper without a link/context, with a strawman of the true argument?
4 replies 1 retweet 27 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @DrZoeHyde
@skepticalzebra may be anonymous on twitter, which I have a lot of understanding for. Though, she is a clinician, with a grounding in bioethics and has shown far more understanding, common sense and empathy than most, including during this grotesque episode.1 reply 0 retweets 20 likes
That doesn't really answer my question. I, too understand twitter anonymity, but it was certainly not the main point. Also, calling it a "grotesque episode" seems odd given that the issue comes from a misrepresentation you made of someone else's words
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Why is it grotesque to suggest that, under appropriate ethics provisions, it might reduce bias in research studies if they were to include anal swabbing as well as the battery of tests already approved?
4 replies 1 retweet 14 likes - Show replies
-
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.