I generally decline challenges by antivaxxers to "debate," at least not live public debates, which give the crank free rein to Gish gallop. Instead, I'll say I'll do a written exchange. None of them has accepted that counteroffer yet, because it's all about the spectaclehttps://twitter.com/AviBittMD/status/1406280224401133569 …
-
Show this thread
-
Also, "live public debates" are far more about rhetoric and the appearance of knowledge than actual knowledge and science themselves. Worse, by appearing on the same stage as an expert, the crank elevates himself in the eyes of the public. Even if he "loses," he still wins.
2 replies 5 retweets 71 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @gorskon
Could you write an article debunking Weinstein and Kirsch' arguments? I think its important as they reach a large audience with their misinformation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Milesdominic
I've already debunked the sort of arguments Kirsch is making using VAERS several times. Does he bring anything new, a new wrinkle, to the same old weaponization of VAERS database claims that antivaxxers have been doing at least since 2005?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gorskon
Kirsch hasn't made new points.... but because Weinstein has always been an honest actor (afaik), many people believe everything he says. It's a shame that he went down this route. It's not a great development.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Weinstein has become a crank. It matters not to me if he's an honest or dishonest crank.
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.