An actual skeptical physician, hearing of a single observation that contradicted a mature finding, replicated, eg for vaccines, in billions of people and thousands of papers, would tell you the far more likely probability is your n=1 observation is garbage.
-
-
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @gorskon and
What if the n = thousands, each and every one dismissed as an anecdote and a coincidence? How about denialism? See brides in the bath case: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/miller.pdf …
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Yeah your crank journal is evidence of nothing and the article is frankly conspiratorial. Not interested in the QAnon of medicine.
4 replies 1 retweet 17 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @jorient and
Truths from this thread: 1. Education is not an absolute shield against the seductive allure of idiocy. 2. Medical conspiracy-mongers try to sell the notion that current evidence-based consensus should be regarded with suspicion bcuz understanding of science sometimes changes.
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @SteveTiger999 @jorient and
Yes. Clearly a superior system would declare something true and then *never change* no matter where the evidence goes. If it changed it could be fallible right? We can’t have people believing in fallible beliefs! That’s how you get protestants!
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @SteveTiger999 and
You mean like the inquisitorial defenders of the CDC's Holy (and infallible) Vaccine Schedule?
6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jorient @MarkHoofnagle and
Time to weigh in. I’m not affiliated with any organization in this thread, just pursuing objective facts that can have context & nuance. Can we all agree vaccines work for immunization AND they can have serious adverse reactions? Here’s one
#RealityCheck: https://youtu.be/ERu-CSTQGSI1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @Corazon17Fuerte @jorient and
Everyone in mainstream medicine already agrees that clinical trials and postlicensing vigilance are required to measure vaccine risks, and that vaccines which aren't quite safe should not be on the market. Do you feel a particular serious risk hasn't been measured and is high?
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @dkegel @Corazon17Fuerte and
Yeah, no one is arguing those points. Orient has basically argued natural immunity to measles from the recent outbreaks is good for those patients despite our knowledge that measles natural immunity comes with destruction of your memory B cell population and increased mortality.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @dkegel and
Further she has argued against public health measures generally as she believes they conflict your freedumb to fight your own individual battles with communicable diseases. It’s not reasonable concern, it’s ideologic idiocy.
3 replies 1 retweet 7 likes
Of course, they feign concern for public health when it suits their ideology. @AAPSonline was pushing the line that undocumented immigrants bring disease and come here to have "anchor babies" long before Trump announced his candidacy for president.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle and
David and Mark, do you often find it difficult to stay on topic? I leave Twitter for a few hours and see lots of ad homenim attacks, unrelated political commentary, and old venom. Let me know when it’s safe to talk about vaccine safety & risk evidence.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Corazon17Fuerte @MarkHoofnagle and
You mean the way Dr. Orient is avoiding ad hominems and discussing only the evidence?


0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
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.