Inventing conflicts of interest for scientists is a tactic from vested interest to discredit domain experts
Dr. Chan, a non expert, is profiting directly from book sales (& knock on gains from profile boosts) by #discrediting scientific experts
Tell us again how does CoI work?
Dr. Chan, a non expert, is profiting directly from book sales (& knock on gains from profile boosts) by #discrediting scientific experts
Tell us again how does CoI work?
There is no need to write a sensationalist & false book with a lifelong anti-science attack dog, climate change contrarian and AIDS conspiracists to smear scientists that reach conclusions one might disagree with, one can just publish papers to advance another point of view.
The problem is of course that alternative views based on speculation, not evidence, are not credible.
The only play contrarians like Dr. Chan have to bridge that credibility gap is not to improve hers, but trying to drag domain experts through the mud with mostly made up BS.
The only play contrarians like Dr. Chan have to bridge that credibility gap is not to improve hers, but trying to drag domain experts through the mud with mostly made up BS.
Anybody who studied any history of anti science actors on any topic in the past, from aspestos to tobacco, HIV to climate change understands as plain as day what is going on here.
Anyways, it seems that this needs to be said again with today's short attention spans.
Anyways, it seems that this needs to be said again with today's short attention spans.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
