Share this page!

Dr David Robert Grimes Profile picture
Twitter logo
Nov 18 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
In the event that twitter implodes entirely, I'll miss the thought-provoking interactions, but be less nostalgic over miasma of hate-mail, pile-ons, and disinformation this hellsite enabled. You'll find me here in interim instagram.com/david_robert_g…

#RIPTwitter #TwitterDown
...I think it's worth remembering while a nice idea, in practice twitter had serious problems, vectoring an awful lot of hate & poison. A problem perhaps soluble with strong moderation and good policy - but a petulant man-child like Elon Musk was only ever going to make it worse
...and of course, mastodon, which I have no idea about using... mstdn.social/@drg1985
Haha... I'm not able to put my m*stodon link in my username, just getting a big DENY message 😅

Well, workaround here... linktr.ee/drg1985

• • •

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

Dr David Robert Grimes Profile picture
Nov 19
With Elizabeth Holmes sentenced to 11+ years in prison, her deliberate fraud at Theranos is in spotlight. Less has been said about how her claims were impossible in theory, dangerous in practice - and how investors should have known. A thread on screening, stats, and greed 🧵 Image
Firstly, there is no doubt that Holmes committed outright fraud; @JohnCarreyrou captures that excellently in his book. But consider the Edison, which Holmes insisted would screen for a litany of conditions from just a miniscule drop of blood, simultaneously. A good idea? Image
Answering that requires both ethical & statistical consideration. Precise number of tests offered was nebulous; on Theranos' now scrubbed website listed 240 testable conditions. Holmes herself used a figure of 200 tests on a single drop of blood. Let's start with ethical problems Image
Read 16 tweets
Dr David Robert Grimes Profile picture
Oct 27
60 years ago today on the 27th October 1962, human life on Earth came the closest it has ever come to a terrible ending. Everyone alive today owes their life to this handsome devil, and most of us don't even know his name. Let's change that - a thread 🧵
First, a little historical context - in October 1962, the Cuban Missile crisis erupted with USSR responding to American missiles in Italy and Turkey by spiriting missiles to Cuba. This stand-off is often considered the most dangerous moment of the cold war: that is not correct..
..for while Khrushchev & Kennedy were engaged in frantic talks to avert disaster, the real drama was playing out deep beneath the Atlantic Ocean, unbeknownst to either leader. Away from Moscow and Washington, a deadly game of cat & mouse had begun with terrible ramifications.
Read 20 tweets
Dr David Robert Grimes Profile picture
Sep 7
In less than 24 hours, a thread offering tips to avoid / fight cancer 'naturally' (mainly through diet⛳️) has gotten over 100k likes.

Sadly, the advice given is both wrong and dangerous, and *very* likely to cause harm.

A quick thread on why this is so misguided... 🧵
First ⛳️: stem cell quackery. No, you cannot boost stem cells with diet & nor would it likely be beneficial to do so (cancer stem cells are a thing too, btw) - this paper by @CaulfieldTim shows such claims are common, but utter nonsense futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/rm…
Second ⛳️: no, you cannot hack your DNA, and anyone who thinks you can doesn't understand DNA. DNA repair is a complex process, but you have NOTHING to do with it. It evolved millions of years before humans even existed; eating mangos isn't going to change any of that...
Read 16 tweets
Dr David Robert Grimes Profile picture
Sep 2
Remember the preprint that claimed COVID vaccines caused significant adverse effects, beloved by contrarians? Well it's now been published in an @ElsevierConnect journal - it *really* shouldn't have been, as it remains hot flaming garbage. Here's why...

STRAP IN, IT'S GRIM.. 🧵
..so the authors basically took safety data from Pfizer and Moderna, and ran a post-hoc and totally arbitrary analysis on it. And lo and behold, they claimed to find harms. Only problem? It was complete tosh, as @JHowardBrainMD explained at the time.. sciencebasedmedicine.org/dont-do-this/
..In the most basic sense, the authors shuffled around data until they got the seeming illusion of a result that fringe figures loved. But this was utter bunk; firstly, every comparison you run increases the chance of a spurious findings. As a famous economist once said...
Read 9 tweets
Dr David Robert Grimes Profile picture
Aug 18
Anti-vaccine (& more broadly, fringe science) harassment is unrelenting. I've lost count of incidents where cranks have threatened me, bombarded my universities with complaints, written slanderous blogs, & tried hard to make life miserable. Fully understand why people step back..
...my experiences aren't unique btw; this happens to *everyone* speaking publicly for vaccination. Nor is this a COVID thing specifically - folks like @gorskon getting it in neck for 20+ years, & first time I had to go to cops with credible threat was 2014. This is MO of fringe..
..it's not just vaccination either: other fringe movements can be even more aggressive. In all cases, they use the same tactics to intimidate. We wrote about these tactics before for the curious:

bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/7/e…
Read 4 tweets
Dr David Robert Grimes Profile picture
May 26
THREAD 🧵: Throughout pandemic, some scientists gained huge followings by making extreme, scary claims from limited data.

Some justify this, arguing exaggeration / hyperbole makes people do the "right thing".

I think this is morally & scientifically reprehensible. Here's why..
Firstly, it's utterly antithetical to communicating science.

Unjustified extrapolation, neglecting of caveats & limitations, & making statements beyond the confidence of the data really not conducive to public understanding of medical science.

Great for clout, though 🙄
.. it also sets up pointless false binaries. Just as sure as some scientists overstate things, another cohort garner huge audiences by understating or dismissing risks.

When they're both deliberately misleading for their cause, it massively undermines any moral argument too
Read 8 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Send Email!

:(