Tweet

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

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

More from @drjanaway

Dr Benjamin Janaway

@drjanaway

Jan 19

From a fundamental standpoint, Boris acts not like a suspect, but the judge, jury and executioner.

He is not above the law.

In all cases, he sees himself as an exception. It is not for him to be ruled or held back, he has known nothing but his own truth of entitlement. Rules are for his subjects, and the world belongs to him. He sees it only as his servant, and his errors are our failure, not his.

This is not the man you want to lead. But this is the man who feels he should. The type of man. The man who feels he is God. The man who has been giving free reign without responsibility or recompense. He sees himself akin to a prophet. His grand story. His epitaph is heroic.

Read 6 tweets

Dr Benjamin Janaway

@drjanaway

Jan 17

https://twitter.com/emmakennytv/status/1482986433442889730

Lets open this up to debate

Lockdowns reduced spread of covid and deaths.

Emma: I disagree
Ben: I agree

https://twitter.com/emmakennytv/status/1482986433442889730

I present to you part 1 of my argument, peer-reviewed science.

bmj.com/content/375/bm…

Part 2: apriori biological plausibility.

A virus spreads through contact, less contact means less spread, less spread means less illness, less illness means less death.

Read 6 tweets

Dr Benjamin Janaway

@drjanaway

Jan 14

Train thought;

With regard to psychiatric diagnosis, such aetiological parameters of illness may be so diverse that any categorisation can only be referred to as a working model, enough to indicate a sphere of treatment but ultimately nothing wholly prescriptive or curative...

from outside the individual, defined in distance by its relative reductionism.

From a darwinian standpoint we can deduce a subset of approximately homogenous approaches, later defined as psychostasis, defences or, in extremis, psychosis, that by inheritance derive survival..

within the subject or local genus, but can only be known by either their behavioural overlays or phylogenetic overlaps. As such, even psychological explanations rely on the same approximations of faith in explanation, but nature is far wiser.

Read 6 tweets

Dr Benjamin Janaway

@drjanaway

Jan 14

An examination of anxiety;

Anxiety, as most we experience it, is an unpleasant feeling of pressure related to some potential, threatening event. And yet, when considered on merit, the event is often so unrealistic that the anxiety is considered bizarre, even embarrassing.

The original Freudian ideas, which are now extrapolated and refined toward diagnostic categories such as #generalisedanxietydisorder and #phobias, evolved to explain an incongruence between physical and emotional symptoms, and their target or explanation.

To consider this more deeply, we must first agree that there are different levels of consciousness in which our ideas and perceptions interact, some are not accessible to us, and are acted upon by psychic mechanisms to make them understandable or tolerable.

Read 15 tweets

Dr Benjamin Janaway

@drjanaway

Jan 12

The Pearson Paradox: How such fundamental stupidity is rewarded.

BECAUSE IT KILLS VULNERABLE PEOPLE YOU MORON. BECAUSE IT IS UNPREDICTABLE AND YOUNG PEOPLE DIE. BECAUSE YOUR CHANCE OF DYING IS HUGELY REDUCED BY HAVING A VACCINE. BECAUSE FFS SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT OTHERS.

THIS IS THE PRINCIPLE OF ALL VACCINES. JESUS CHRIST. THIS IS WHY YOU HAD THE MMR. THIS IS LIKE TRYING TO REASON WITH BUTTERED TOAST. HOW IS YOUR SMALLPOX? OH WAIT. HOW IS YOUR RUBELLA?! OH YEAH. FFS DO THE TELEGRAPH LIKE DEAD PEOPLE?!

Read 9 tweets

Dr Benjamin Janaway

@drjanaway

Dec 21, 2021

The ethical case for #vaccination. A thread.

Before we consider what is, I believe, a reasonable case for universal vaccination, we must first address the problem of misinformation. There is no better way to do this than to present the facts as they most reliably exist.

First we must consider the truth that nothing in science is ultimately correct in all cases, but based on a statistical likelihood that error is less likely. Essentially if the relationship between two variables exists by something less than chance, we can be confident of 'truth'

This is not to remove the philosophical quandary of what defines 'truth' in its entirety, and if we were to be strict and reference Kant's diktats of reason we would conclude the same, that all knowledge is inferential and thus subject to our senses and conceptualisations.

Read 49 tweets

Share this page!

Dr Benjamin Janaway

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @drjanaway

Dr Benjamin Janaway

Dr Benjamin Janaway

Dr Benjamin Janaway

Dr Benjamin Janaway

Dr Benjamin Janaway

Dr Benjamin Janaway

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?