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.
-
-
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.
-
ARCHAON HAS SPOKEN!!
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
My point is that this is not the point. I just read the retraction and I still want to know where
@HHSkepDoc erred. As you know, David, Harriet is very good at what she does. If she made errors, I'm sure she'd like to learn from them. So would I. Learning is how we move forward. -
It's pretty obvious if you read the article. If you don't walk away with questions, you've likely got a case of confirmation bias. I very much like and respect Dr. Hall, yet I agree with SBM's call. It's not nearly as simple as you claim.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
you say "In this case we felt there were too many issues with the treatment of the relevant science." that seems extremely vague and i don't see where the review treats relevant science in a sketchy way. can you provide any specific examples?
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.