If you want to read some discussion on the piece and why it might be problematic for reasons other than that it's supported by anti-vaccine activists...https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1389721358871928835?s=20 …
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If tomorrow I found that prominent HIV/AIDS deniers used some of my tweets to mislead many people into thinking HIV was harmless, then I would re-check what I wrote for errors, or re-phrase it in a way HIV/AIDS denialists could not as easily abuse.https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1391585704883462144 …
-
You,
@GidMK, did the same thing when u saw people misrepresenting what your paper said. Tellingly, I don't see Pegden et al. doing this much for their blogpost. Maybe because their analysis depends on a vaccine denialist trope? https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1391555674128019457 … https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1390178068866637824 …pic.twitter.com/Vddv7P6cTX
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I just don’t understand how they vociferously address valid criticism by actual clinicians, but maybe I missed when they push back when promoted by fringe conspiracists
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So you just repeat your argument? I think you always should try to think by yourself and it is inevitable to sometimes (somewhat) agree with people you dont want to be identified. It is embarrassing to use this as any kind of argument against people you disagree with.
-
I see ”sceptics” do this all the time... Not good advice from them on how to form a scientific argument.
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.