Oops, wrong link. Read this @JayGordonMDFAAPhttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/maternal-fluoride-and-iq-the-scientific-community-pushes-back/ …
-
-
Replying to @SkepticalDDS @gorskon and
good post! I would just mention that one of the well-known teratogens that is considered fairly disastrous, depakote, is known to lower IQ by about 10 points, so 3-4 sounds like...not much but in the big scheme of things population wise it's a lot.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @evolutionarypsy @SkepticalDDS and
The critique that the methods were lousy, self report not reliable, and that it doesn't make sense that one sex would be affected and not the other are all very fair, I was just making a very specific point not a critique of your blog post with which I agree :)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @evolutionarypsy @gorskon and
Exactly. My point is that a physician should know better than to use such a shaky study to attempt to prop up his weak pre-conceived beliefs.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @SkepticalDDS @gorskon and
Mr R, I notice that you consistently, & persistently, resort to ad hominem responses to those with whom you disagree. For your perusal, I’m including a very interesting article
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2019/11/10/how-to-argue-like-a-child/amp/__twitter_impression=true … Perhaps you, and some of your SBM colleagues, could discuss?
#introspection1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @peakpilot @gorskon and
Please point out my ad hominems. I want to discuss the issue with Jay on the science, not the emotional scare tactics he is employing. I never have, nor will I ever call him a name or belittle his character. I'm sure he's doing what he believes is right, but I disagree... 1/2
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @SkepticalDDS @gorskon and
You stray off topic/resort to comments in a subtle attempt to undermine the man-Eg “Jay, did you read the position paper pointing out the flaws in the study?” “...his weak pre-conceived beliefs.” “..with his approach and his misuse of the scientific literature in this instance.”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peakpilot @gorskon and
1. Honest question, not an ad hominem. 2. He admitted to having pre-conceived beliefs. Not an ad hominem. 3. I do believe he misrepresented the literature. Still no ad hominem.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SkepticalDDS @gorskon and
Thank you for your response. However, for a clearer understanding of the terminology, and some excellent resources for the skeptic, might I refer you to the following?
http://TheEthicalSkeptic.com
Enjoy the rest of your day.1 reply 3 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @peakpilot @SkepticalDDS and
“The Ethical Skeptic”?


I’ve perused that blog before. Rarely have I come across a blogger so unjustifiably full of himself. He’s even more long winded than I am, with much less to say other than to attack straw man versions of skepticism and skeptics.4 replies 3 retweets 15 likes
I've definitely come across a blogger so unjustifiably full of himself. Spoiler alert! - It's you, David.
-
-
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.