Shit...that is a great study. Wonder why it is still publically available? Good one!
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It is published...so I assumed it was peer reviewed. How can you argue that?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
And the paper we are referring to, is written by some fiction writter? Please explain why this study is no better than the ones you reference all the time. Put your clear and cogent reasoning here, for all to see. We are very curious and anxiously await your education.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @urbanx_f @Wallace_Noll
The author was literally the founder of an anti-vaccine org, but “forgot” to report that when it was published. And he’s not a scientist. Oh, andthe article was funded by the anti-vaccine NVIC. So yes - it’s a turd of an article.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463891/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @MadVickie @Wallace_Noll
Show me the evidence that Neil Miller is a fraud, and I will evauate that, and make an informed analysis. You might even turn me over to your side of the table.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Miller’s not a fraud, as far as I can tell. He’s just incompetent and biased. He can’t do epidemiology right. He doesn’t know immunology. His research is truly execrable and painful to read because of how bad he is at it.
2 replies 1 retweet 18 likes -
Well, it is a numbers game right? Show me the flawed numbers, then.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.