Cool, how many self-identified non-experts are confidently correcting me in my mentions today. Almost feels like old twitter 😆😆

“it’s just semantics” as if the entire point and purpose of using words is to convey some specific and particular meaning to other people.

Of course it’s just semantics! Why else are we talking??

Another term like this is “endemic” which people often incorrectly assumed meant “end of the pandemic” instead of its real meaning “consistently and continuously present”.

What other technical words have this feature?

The comments here make me wonder how many US Catholics are aware that a lot of evangelicals don't see them as Christian. And it makes me wonder if knowing that might make Catholics less willing to align themselves with evangelicals politically.

As we round out #BlackMaternalHealthWeek ,
I want to remind us all of a role our society plays in maternal deaths. We teach people to go to work/school and push through their pain. We teach young kids to ignore their bodies signals and prioritize productivity over health.

'A biased test kept thousands of Black people from getting a kidney transplant. It’s finally changing'

14,000 Black kidney transplant candidates have been moved up in priority on the transplant list after a biased race-correction factor was eliminated.

apnews.com/article/kidney…

Y’all, I just went to open Duolingo after kinda a while and why does my icon look like this, omg?!😆

Measles elimination in the U.S. is under 'renewed threat,' CDC warns

Around 30% of all measles cases in the last four years were recorded from January to March, a CDC report found

nbcnews.com/health/health-…

Short video introducing philosophy of science, work in the field & 'causation in science' X➡️Y 🧪🧬🧠

What is philosophy of science? Why does it matter for science and science communication?

Thanks to Luis Fonseca & UCI Social Sciences @uci for creating this!
youtube.com/watch?v=nNgceX…

There's been a lot of discussion recently about the misuse of MR, except the proliferation of incorrectly drawing your assumptions doesn't seem to stem from the recent explosion in papers. Rather, many high impact papers seminal to the field feature an 'incorrect' arrow

a 🧵

Disease Pokemon — gotta catch them all 😅🫠

“Your equations assume the very thing you’re trying to prove” is a ridiculously common statistics mistake on Twitter.

Tfw you can relate to something so much it hurts.

This is a question for physicists or dermatologists or ophthalmologists, or idk who but:

how sure are we these “far UVC” light systems people are proposing as a tool for killing airborne viruses won’t lead to skin &/or eye cancer in the people spending all day in these rooms?