So a certain prominent Skeptic has claimed that we at @ScienceBasedMed "have long openly displayed a far-left progressive political bias that has compromised their otherwise stellar reputation as a trustworthy source." Yet he cannot give any concrete examples from SBM.
-
-
I also like how you basically appear to be admitting that it doesn't really even matter to you if there actually are examples of "far-left progressive political bias" in
@ScienceBasedMed. -
Provide concrete examples of how it doesn't meet standards or gtfo. This statement is PR garbage that is basically meaningless. Unless you post an article breaking down how it does not meet scientific standards, or what data is wrong, then this is a politically motivated act.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thank you for sharing this retraction note, which I did not see up this morning. Is it fair to say that you are not disputing what Dr. Hall wrote, but feel the subject matter needs to be handled more rigorously?
-
I think the biggest crime is that she failed to distinguish properly between her opinions and those of the author. Why didn't
@ScienceBasedMed simply ask her to clear it up before it was published? Clearly from the 1,300+ comments, many people misunderstand who is saying what.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sure sure, very science, much impartial
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
So then please explain “too many issues with the treatment of the relevant science,” What were the issues? What would the proper treatments of the relevant science be? Why not leave the article or allow for corrections? Not addressing this leads little other interpretation
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I just read the retracted article. I can see why it was retracted. Yeesh.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.