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
Except that the vaccine schedule changes almost every year due to new evidence. You really aren't very good at this, are you?
4 replies 0 retweets 23 likes -
She's executive director of the AAPS for pete's sake that should be everyone's first, second, and 984th clue
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @dajerseyboy @gorskon and
To be the president of a real professional society you typically have chairs of departments, national leaders with extensive academic credentials, a 300 page CV and major contributions to a field. For AAPS the only professional criteria is, “do you have your own stethoscope?”
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @dajerseyboy and
But AAPS makes up for the limp professional criteria with stringent right-wing ideological requirements. I believe Ron and Rand Paul were/are members.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yep. To @AAPSonline the John Birch Society was a bunch of Commie pinkos.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.

