@janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 1/ The 🏴 government decided pediatric gender care in England would be a monopoly contract (a Labour minister, in 2008), despite all other NHS patients officially being entitled to a choice of providers, & second opinions on diagnoses & treatment, & gave it to GIDS, which has…
https://t.co/JFD5efyEoq
And was it down to 🏴…
Yes, the 🏴 government is very much guilty on this.
More from Health
Thread on how atheism leads to mental retardation (backed with medical citations🧵💉)
To start with, atheism is an unnatural self-contradicting doctrine.
Medical terminology proves that human beings are naturally pre-disposed to believe in God. Oxford scientists assert that people are "born believers".
https://t.co/kE0Fi588yn
https://t.co/OqyXcGIMJn
It should be known that atheism could never produce an intelligently-functioning society and neither ever will.
Contrastingly, Islam produced several intellectuals & polymaths, was on the forefront of scientific development, boasting 100% literacy
It is also scientifically proven that atheism led to lesser scientific curiosity and scientific frauds, which is also why atheists incline to pseudo-science.
Whereas, religion in general and Islam in particular boosted education.
https://t.co/19Onc84u3g
Atheists are also likely to affected by pervasive mental and developmental disorders like high-functioning autism.
Cognitive Scientists and renowned Neurologists found that more atheism is leads to greater autism.
https://t.co/zRjEyFoX3P
To start with, atheism is an unnatural self-contradicting doctrine.
Medical terminology proves that human beings are naturally pre-disposed to believe in God. Oxford scientists assert that people are "born believers".
https://t.co/kE0Fi588yn
https://t.co/OqyXcGIMJn
It should be known that atheism could never produce an intelligently-functioning society and neither ever will.
Contrastingly, Islam produced several intellectuals & polymaths, was on the forefront of scientific development, boasting 100% literacy
If the Muslim world had not existed, there literally would be no technology/achievements today.
— Starks\u262a\ufe0f\U0001f1f9\U0001f1e9 (@MegaIntelIect) January 8, 2021
Science only developed because of Islam, Europe should be grateful to Islam for civilizing their barbaric cult.
Source: The Caliph's Splendor, Pg 204-05 https://t.co/HVypO52Tpc pic.twitter.com/00jYSbaDSs
It is also scientifically proven that atheism led to lesser scientific curiosity and scientific frauds, which is also why atheists incline to pseudo-science.
Whereas, religion in general and Islam in particular boosted education.
https://t.co/19Onc84u3g
Atheists are also likely to affected by pervasive mental and developmental disorders like high-functioning autism.
Cognitive Scientists and renowned Neurologists found that more atheism is leads to greater autism.
https://t.co/zRjEyFoX3P
You gotta think about this one carefully!
Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)
The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.
Your test comes back positive.
Are you really sick? Explain below 👇
The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through
You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.
👇
Here is what we know:
- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative
Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):
- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy
👇
Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:
▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)
▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)
👇
Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)
The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.
Your test comes back positive.
Are you really sick? Explain below 👇
The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through
Really doesn\u2019t fit well in a tweet. pic.twitter.com/xN0pAyniFS
— Dr. Lena Sugar \U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308\U0001f1ea\U0001f1fa\U0001f1ef\U0001f1f5 (@_jvs) February 18, 2021
You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.
👇
Here is what we know:
- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative
Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):
- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy
👇
Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:
▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)
▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)
👇