Also a self-refuting article. Why should the author care about how skeptics spend their time when there is war and hunger? Of course skeptics have written about flaws in mammograms. So the article has the bonus of being wrong too. https://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1334972387163394048 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
This for example.https://today.wayne.edu/medicine/news/2015/10/29/dr-gorskis-nejm-essay-questions-effectiveness-of-mammograms-in-metastatic-breast-cancer-29406 …
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @JHowardBrainMD
Well played, citing an article on mammography I co-authored with H. Gilbert Welch, whom Dr. Prasad adores. Well played indeed.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @gorskon
I do think VP makes some- though less than original good points. But it bugs me that he posts that article despite being shown many many examples of skeptics doing what he asks- taking on bad medicine in mainstream medicine.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
That’s the thing that irritates me about people like @vprasadmdmph. They make utterly unoriginal points about skepticism that skeptics have been debating for decades and act as though they’ve made some new devastating discovery that no skeptic has ever thought of before. 

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.