Thread by @deralteGaukler

The CEO of Patanjali, a quackery company in India wants to debate the IndMedAssoc (on live TV) the 'science' that led to the approval of #Coronil for C-19.
A Q&D tweetorial on why that's a bad idea.

The crux of the issue is a 'RCT' cutt.ly/olUqlXG on basis of which the 'medicine' was approved. The shortcomings of this study have been dissected by @EdzardErnst (cutt.ly/ilUwEyc) and @GorwayGlobal (cutt.ly/flUwS5U) as PubPeer comments keep piling up.

And while #Coronil and its tall claims were endorsed by two central govt. ministers at the circus, the IndMedAssoc issued a strongly worded objection to the approval (cutt.ly/VlUew7C) to which said CEO challenged them to a 'live debate'. A number of people feel why not?

In general, science is never debated 'live'. Published science is vetted via peer-review, both pre- and post-publication. Letters to editors, opinions, reviews, etc. 'Live' isn't a great idea. Here's why.

1. Medium - TV debates are timed with an idea of giving all sides equal voice. An hour, perhaps? Well, it takes a few mins to read a paper, much longer to understand it, and substantially longer to critically appraise it. That's for experts. Even if one comes prepared, 'live'

allows bringing in obfuscation, deflection, whataboutery, Gish gallop, etc which are difficult to debunk in the span of the debate.

2. Moderator - To effectively moderate the debate, one has to first establish whether both parties have a common base understanding. At the same time, even EBM docs aren't consensual on whether Ayurveda is pseudoscience. To have an unbiased mod is tough.

https://twitter.com/deralteGaukler/status/1365044459981967366?s=20

3. Audience - the most critical component of any debate. AYUSH, especially Ayurveda, is a polarised topic in India. East vs West, tradition vs modern, ancient wisdom vs. 'moneysucking allopaths'...us vs them. Neither is scientific literacy the highest in the Indian audience.

Also, every Indian knows at least one diabetic aunt and one arthritic uncle who were 'cured' by Ayurveda. To go against these biases and anecdata in a 'live' debate is impossible. Quackery thrives on this and one can expect Scamdev's minions to pander to it.

4. Science (and its limitations) - If a genuine Q was posed at the end of the debate 'Can #Coronil cure C-19?', any honest scientist would say 'Don't know'. We can't conclusively say yes or no. Current evidence isn't enough to settle the issue.

https://twitter.com/GorwayGlobal/status/1364264560744685574?s=20

How would Scammy's followers interpret this? Most likely, 'So it could work, let's just have faith in our ancient system of medicine, where's the harm?' This from @GorwayGlobal perhaps hits home clearly what Scammy really wants when he wants a debate.
cutt.ly/LlUpbiI

So how to debunk #Coronil? Send letters to the journal, share articles which highlight the study's flaws, raise general awareness on scientific method and how quackery attempts to hijack it to appear legitimate. Share a platform with quacks won't do it.