Yes, but the thing about noticing what other experts, including those in other countries, have concluded, is that it can induce humility & be a check on your own biases. E.g., noting the behavior & successes in E. Asia would have kept US experts from saying masks don't work.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
1. There can be more than one check on our biases. 2. The scientific method is not a list one can check off. In this case, there are more relevant variables than there is ability to test them: assignment protocol, severity of illness, HCQ dosage & timing, addition of zinc, etc.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Sure, broadly speaking there is a list. But it is not detailed enough to guarantee good science. I meant that step #5 (Test the prediction) in this case (and in much of biological and social science) includes an undefinable number of choices.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I'm not saying it's unknowable. And I explicitly said above that I do not know if HCQ is effective. What I have said is that the certainty claimed by both sides is unwarranted.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
1. Do you really believe that every scientist/doctor backing HCQ is a fraud? 2. The Lancet had an article taking your position, which was retracted because the data was fraudulent. 3. There are politicians with zero scientific knowledge spouting off on both sides.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
They're not necessarily a fraud, but they are falling prey to belief and anecdote over scientific and clinical trial evidence, and that's not good.
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.