It has all the hallmarks of a medical fraud- testimonials without citations to data, claims based on unvalidated theory...
-
-
Replying to @DrDan_Biotech @SBMPediatrics and
Also, it's named after someone, which seems to be a big "tell" for quackery.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @cantab_biker @DrDan_Biotech and
Nope. It works. It's amazing. Loads of video testimonials from patients.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @SBMPediatrics @cantab_biker and
Saw that. Just because some guy writes an article on something he doesn't believe in, never having tried it, means nothing. I suspect a drug company paid the guy to write it. Thousands off the meds....big pharma loses money. This article appears..... connect the dots.
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HollyGo55 @SBMPediatrics and
Saying “connect the dots” is functionally identical to saying “there is no connection between these things that I can draw myself, but I feel like there should be”
3 replies 4 retweets 29 likes -
Replying to @fMRI_guy @DrJenGunter and
@fMRI_guy this is HUGELY incorrect. The idiom "connect the dots" refers to connecting salient points in a mass of data to see the big picture, & frequently used as a tool of refutation: You claim not to know this person, but you have 3 telephone conv in 2 days totalling 225 min.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peasantthinking @DrJenGunter and
It has definitely been co-opted by the quacks, though. It's like how "follow the money" can be an important aspect of serious investigations, but if used on the internet, it's usually deployed in bad faith.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @fMRI_guy @DrJenGunter and
It can be, certainly, just like anything else. But that's misusing it, not what it means. It's not "functionally identical."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peasantthinking @fMRI_guy and
In this context, that’s exactly what it is. It’s a lazy fallacious argument meant to poison the well.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Yup. In this context it's a logical fallacy of the general type of poisoning the well and the specific subtype of ad hominem fallacy.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @SBMPediatrics and
Yes, correct. I am sorry I was objecting to the mischaracterization of the idiom, poisoning the well and arguing in bad faith would have been better terms. But as the doctor has correctly chastised me for in another thread, I am nitpicking and diverting the thread. Not my intent
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.