This is a classic antivax trope that I've discussed many times. 2/https://respectfulinsolence.com/2009/08/24/its-so-cute-when-anti-vaxers-try-to/ …
-
-
Show this thread
-
Ah, here's the problem with
@F1000Research. This is how a blatantly antivax reviewer can be chosen.
3/3pic.twitter.com/FcMEwTkRgv
Show this thread -
Oops. I forgot to include, for the benefit of
@F1000Research, examples of James Lyons-Weiler's antivax proclivities. Here's one. 3a/3https://respectfulinsolence.com/2019/12/20/demonizing-aluminum-adjuvants/ …Show this thread -
Here's another, where Lyons-Weiler teamed up with antivax quack Paul Thomas to do a dubious "vaxxed/unvaxxed" study. (His suggestion in the review was definitely self-serving.) 3b/3https://respectfulinsolence.com/2019/01/25/ipak-running-dubious-study/ …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The study itself looks suspect.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well, darn it. Now I can't feel good about the reviews I wrote way back when.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
[1/2] Hi
@gorskon, many thanks for bringing this to our attention. Our model of open review is designed so that interested parties can not only see who has peer reviewed an article but it also enables them to comment on the report... -
[2/2]...With this in mind, please may I ask that you comment on the report to outline your concerns, so that there is a record for anyone else reading the article? Also just to let you know we are reopening the peer review & we will also update the reviewer’s competing interests.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.