Ah no - James Randi has died, aged 92. Sad, but a hell of a life - from touring with @alicecooper to besting Houdini, & exposing fraud. This elven man cast a long shadow - my favourite Randi story is how he got a Nature paper (!) (1/n) nytimes.com/2020/10/21/obi…
In 1988, immunologist Jacques Benveniste made an huge claim: homeopathy, long thought physically impossible, was real. If so, everything we knew about physical science would have to be rewritten. The seemingly strong result was a dilemma for editor of @nature, John Maddox (2/n)
Maddox decided to publish the paper, with an unusual caveat - that it would be independently validated by a group of special investigators. A team skilled at detecting fraud and self-delusion. And crucial to this mix? James Randi, as I write in "The Irrational Ape"... (3/n)
Notes of editorial reservation are rare in journals like @nature, but Randi had previous form here: he'd already been involved in exposing Uri Geller, demonstrating that a paper extolling his psychic skill just required credulous scientists, so his inclusion made sense (4/n)
Now, Benveniste's result seemed like vindication to the alternative medicine community, & coupled with the involvement of the charismatic Randi, press interest was intense. Immediately they noted the experiment was unblinded, which Randi remedied... (5/n)
Side note which I love: Benveniste, something of a publicity hound, loved attention but loathed Randi, objecting to his presence. While awaiting new result, Randi performed magic tricks to entertain everyone. This did not endear him further to Benveniste, but amused others (6/n)
So confident of validation was Benveniste that he had a press conference with magnums of cooled champagne ready to go. But sadly for him, Randi and the team merely showed the French researchers had utterly deluded themselves - homeopathy was and remains a fiction (7/n)
This was an exemplar of "pathological science", which can happen when scientists delude themselves into subscribing to cherished beliefs, disregarding evidence. This is why in science we have to try and prove ourselves wrong, not right - Randi knew how easily we're fooled (8/n)
Predictably, perhaps, Benveniste didn't accept this, cursing Randi & claiming he was the victim of a Galileo-like persecution, somehow missing the memo that Galileo was actually vindicated by experiment. Here's Randi's @nature paper on subject! (9/n) nature.com/articles/33428…
So there you have it - in Randi's incredible life, he also has a nature paper on top of everything else, an achievement most scientists never get! He will be missed, here's a nice video if you've never had the pleasure of his wry humour (10/n)
And if you're interested in why we get things wrong, and the text asides in this thread, you can check out my book here if you like (11/n) n = 11 amazon.co.uk/Irrational-Ape…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr David Robert Grimes

Dr David Robert Grimes Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @drg1985

21 Sep
Hi @JuliaHB1 - your claim here is highly misleading, and misunderstands #CovidTesting. I'll try explain why: firstly, the sensitivity of PCR #COVID19 test is ~98%, specificity 98.9%. Now, false positives & negative rates depend on prevalence of COVID in test population... (1/n)
...we can simulate this as prevalence changes, like I just did here, showing test PPV (chances a positive is a true positive) and NPV (chances a negative result is true negative) as prevalence increases. At your 5% prevalence, a positive test is 82% likely to be correct (2/n)
..but the impressive part is the NPV: this is close to 100%, and tells us that a negative result is, in general, highly reliable (with some caveats). That is really important to know, as it means we can have confidence in negative results. That's extremely important! (3/n)
Read 6 tweets
10 Sep
Unbelievable - Mark Zuckerberg refuses to remove #vaccine disinformation, because he thinks we should find media that reflects our opinion. That's precisely the problem - we're entitled to our own opinion, not our own facts. @Facebook don't care

theguardian.com/technology/202…
... seriously, this is disingenuous. We as a species as not information-neutral - we are FAR more prone to believe repeated assertions (illusory truth effect), & more affected by emotive falsehood than mundane truth. Groups from anti-vaccine to #QANONS know this, so do @Facebook
..we also know exposure to anti-vaccine conspiracy theory makes parents vaccine hesitant (h/t @DrDanielJolley et al) AND Facebook a primary vector of this, which has been causing harm for years. @Facebook know this - they just see all engagement as profitable & don't give a damn
Read 4 tweets
20 Mar
Yesterday Irish supreme court upheld "absolute confidence" bar on negative results from #CervicalCheck - by chance, preprint by @donalb5, @CiaranORiain, & several others on false positives / negatives just dropped. So let me explain why most scientists & docs unhappy (1/n)
First off, the idea behind screening is that you cast a wide net, and over a population, you catch some warning signs before they become a problem. The net is inherently imperfect - but on AVERAGE it saves lives. So what defines a test's reliability? These things (2/n)
So what do you want in an ideal screen? Some test with high sensitivity (correctly identifies the thing) and high specificity (doesn't accidentally say the thing is there when it's not). But prevalence matters too - take LBC, the standard modality. (3/n)
Read 12 tweets
18 Mar
Being asked frequently about whether #coronavirus will make anti-vaccine activists change their mind on vaccination. Seems logical, right? Alas, no - they're claiming the virus is a hoax, & pushing 'cures' like vitamin C - which is precisely what I'd expect. Thread on why (1/n)
The positions anti-vaxxers are taking in light of #COVID19 seem bizarre, but it's important to realise that anti-vaccine beliefs are by definition already conspiratorial - you'd have to accept all scientists / doctors are lying to you for some reason (2/n)
..this is crux of the issue. Vaccine denialism isn't a logical position; it's IDEOLOGICAL one. It's a form of motivated reasoning - start with a conclusion ("vaccines are bad") and then bend reality to try & justify that belief. Here's a little from #IrrationalApe on it (3/n)
Read 9 tweets
23 Dec 19
Joseph Mercola runs an empire that hawks snake-oil, denigrates conventional medicine, & has given over $2.9 million dollars to anti-vaccine activism. And he epitomises precisely how vulnerable we are to falsehoods, & the consequences. A thread 1/n washingtonpost.com/investigations…
..for context, Joseph Mercola runs mercola dot com. A vocal proponent of alternative medicine, Mercola pushes medical disinformation at an alarming rate. Among his myriad claims

1. Cancer is a fungus
2. Vaccines cause illness
3. HIV isn't cause of AIDS

and such nonsense. 2/n
..and yet, Mercola controls a media empire. His website is one of the most popular in the world, he's had 2 NYT bestselling books (1st a dodgy diet one) & the other alleging bird flu was a medical industry hoax. He's a frequent guest on Dr Oz. He made $7 million in 2010 alone 3/n
Read 16 tweets
24 Nov 19
THREAD: Today marks 160 years since Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species" was released, & theory of evolution first unveiled. Evolution is of paramount importance in everything from biology to cancer - but it's often deliberately misrepresented. Here's why.. (1/n)
..In the book, Darwin beautifully laid out his hypothesis, supported by ample data, pointing to a humbling and deep truth about the interconnected of all life on Earth. As I write in #TheIrrationalApe, Darwin shed light on how we are a part of nature, not apart from it (2/n)
..initially at least, this wasn't that controversial. In fact, Darwin's work was a surprise hit. But inevitably the idea we are not alien from nature ultimately began to rankle some sensibilities.. and as Darwin got more popular, he incurred the wrath of a powerful enemy (3/n)
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!