sso_eol

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by sso_eol 2y ago

   You're nitpicking over the connotation of "read" and missing the broader point that she is by her own admission just parroting the critiques of others without much thought. > At this point, we're done. I've made
2. 2.▲
   by sso_eol 2y ago

   Here's what she actually said: > Also, not for nothing but this thing is 388 pages. I do not have the attention span to be sure I wasn't missing something. So I cooled my heels and waited for the people who do have that experti
3. 3.▲
   by sso_eol 2y ago

   Well, if she'd bothered to read Chapter 9 of the Review then she might have had some inkling as to why deferring to the AMA and the AAP isn't such a great idea. Fortunately, the researchers commissioned by the Cass Review took a g
4. 4.▲
   by sso_eol 2y ago

   I've skimmed the video previously but thanks for the transcript. It just confirms that her message is basically that she doesn't understand it, couldn't be bothered to read it and think about it herself, so here are some peop
5. 5.▲
   by sso_eol 2y ago

   > and it rules out a lot of studies for not being double blind Sorry but you're repeating disinformation that has already been refuted by the lead author, and is obviously incorrect if you read the Review itself. http://a