Agree 100%. So many 'debunkers' making a career out of it, when it only serves to spread the original fantastical claims.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @drjasonfung @VPrasadMDMPH
Do you have any evidence of that, or are you just salty from being dunked on by skeptical thinkers?https://respectfulinsolence.com/2018/05/30/an-unholy-combination-of-methodolatry-and-quackery-apologia-with-jade-eggs/ …
0 replies 3 retweets 24 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
You are wrong about
@gorskon, he is one of the most careful and thoughtful skeptics who, similar to you, spends a great deal of time documenting and explaining why things are wrong. It is incorrect to suggest he is superficial - he is the resource for deeply researched debunks.1 reply 1 retweet 21 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @VPrasadMDMPH and
In fact the first step when one encounters bullshit is to ask has David written about it yet, because while he has an unfortunate tendency to throat clear for 1000 words or so, the subsequent deep dive will be a reliable resource.
3 replies 1 retweet 21 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @VPrasadMDMPH and
My guess is that Vinay had never actually seriously tried to counter some common claims of alternative medicine or antivaxers and thinks they can be dismissed airily with a haughty "therr is no evidence."
3 replies 1 retweet 14 likes
Here's the thing. Often there is evidence, a lot of it. It's bad evidence that doesn't show what's claimed, but that's not always obvious without a deep dive into the methods and analysis. A good example is the 2012 Vickers acupuncture meta-analysis.
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.