True, in his second Tweet he refers to a review article, but his FIRST move is the pharma shill gambit, just like an antivaxer, not referring to evidence.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
David - You found it amusing I pointed out she's paid by 9 drug companies. Not unreasonable to ask why she points only to a web site as the source of statin adverse effects. Here's substance: my comment/review has 60 pubs on statin effects she ignored:https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205138 …
-
Antivaxers say the same thing about
@DrPaulOffit and@PeterHotez. And, yes, when the pharma shill gambit is your FIRST move, that's just like an antivaxer. No one's saying COIs don't matter, but your choice to use an ad hominem first before addressing evidence is not a good look. - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Let us all beware the use of false equivalence as a rhetorical device in these days when truth is under attack in the public sphere.
-
In this case, it's not false equivalence. David's first move was right out of the antivax playbook. It's not a good way to start if he wants to show
@AnnMarieNavar wrong. It's exactly the opposite of a good way to start.
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.
