Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #ManufactureOfDoubt
Most recents (5)
I respect Hiroko Tabuchi but once again, we have a NYT story on #COIs btw #academia and industry focused on the wrong points. Far too much time is spent on compliance w/ disclosure requirements, when disclosure FAILS as a remedy for #MotivatedBias.
nytimes.com/2022/10/31/cli…
1/
nytimes.com/2022/10/31/cli…
1/
More discussion is had on the notion that the sponsor has "no influence" on the work of the center at issue when we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is the depth of the relationship btw the sponsor and the center that leads to behavior of partiality.
2/
2/
I will never cease to be amazed at the willful ignorance that prevails in conversations about #COIs and #MotivatedBias. The #DecisionSciences lit is rich but is roundly ignored in almost all of the reporting on these subjects (incl. by the principals involved).
3/
3/
As someone who knows more than a little about the history of the railway industry and occupational and public health (both US and UK, actually), I'm rendered almost speechless by what is happening with the possible strikes in the U.S.
1/
1/
I firmly believe that it is difficult to understand contemporary problems in public health policy and even health care policy in the US w/o really integrating the histories of the railway industry and railway medicine. The connections are LEGION.
2/
2/
They include:
- basic reasons why private health care is provided by third parties rather than directly from corporations and employers;
- the origins of the #ManufactureOfDoubt in regulated industries;
- accusations of #malingering and feigned illness in social policy;
3/
- basic reasons why private health care is provided by third parties rather than directly from corporations and employers;
- the origins of the #ManufactureOfDoubt in regulated industries;
- accusations of #malingering and feigned illness in social policy;
3/
I really can’t believe this drivel.
I am not an academic. I’m a real doctor who cares for patients and I’m a real parent so I’m just going to spend a few minutes commenting on how this is not a serious nor trustworthy article.
I am not an academic. I’m a real doctor who cares for patients and I’m a real parent so I’m just going to spend a few minutes commenting on how this is not a serious nor trustworthy article.
💩1: “Shielding kids from exposure only increases their risk.”
This is NOT true for a vaccine-preventable disease.
This is NOT true for a vaccine-preventable disease.
And UK is considering changing their strategy based on actual data.
“However, studies in the US & other countries, where vaccine programmes have been running for years, have not seen the large ⬆️ in shingles that were predicted.”
amp.theguardian.com/society/2021/m…
“However, studies in the US & other countries, where vaccine programmes have been running for years, have not seen the large ⬆️ in shingles that were predicted.”
amp.theguardian.com/society/2021/m…
“Centering equity often means one size does not fit all.”
Different communities have different resources and face different underlying risk (that varies with surges) as does their need/ability to employ effective public health tools.
There is no simple, binary choice.
Different communities have different resources and face different underlying risk (that varies with surges) as does their need/ability to employ effective public health tools.
There is no simple, binary choice.
Different families and individuals have different resources and face different underlying risk (that varies with surges) as does their need/ability to employ effective mitigations.
There is no simple, binary choice.
There is no simple, binary choice.
The pandemic will “end” for different communities, families and individuals at different times.
Be wary of any “expert” who tells you there is a simple end date and their policy applies to every community at the same time.
Be wary of any “expert” who tells you there is a simple end date and their policy applies to every community at the same time.
I see that we are still slavishly worshipping at the idol of RCTs in epidemiologic science as the evidentiary warrant for public health action. I have written LOTS on the foolishness of this, its disastrous ethical & policy implications, & it's role in #ManufactureOfDoubt.
1/
1/
It's almost as if people have never heard of the #PrecautionaryPrinciple. If we demanded evidence of exposure-harm or intervention-benefit that flowed from RCTs to warrant public health interventions, we would have essentially NO public health action AT ALL.
2/
2/
More on this, from my 2016 paper on importance of maintaining epistemically reasonable standards for proof of harm (& benefit!) as warrant for public health action:
(The subject of the paper is COIs and lays out my arg for regarding them as ordinary epidemiologic exposures)
3/
(The subject of the paper is COIs and lays out my arg for regarding them as ordinary epidemiologic exposures)
3/
