A crucial detail was apparently hidden from the public.
According to Sky, the official knew it would potentially end their career if it came to light.
This is important because it may undermine Nicola Sturgeonās story. 2/13
A thread on the latest Sturgeon-Salmond revelations. š
1/13
A crucial detail was apparently hidden from the public.
According to Sky, the official knew it would potentially end their career if it came to light.
This is important because it may undermine Nicola Sturgeonās story. 2/13
She has tried to hide behind legalities, false narratives, straw men.
Every tactic in the book has been rolled out to stop the truth reaching the public. 3/13
She argues they are being attacked, when nothing could be further from the truth.
We all want to get to the bottom of what happened here - for those women. 4/13
Theyāve been failed by basic, unforgivable errors from Nicola Sturgeonās government.
And failed ever since by the SNPās obstruction over what went on. 5/13
If she was, she wouldnāt have met with Alex Salmond all through the summer of 2018.
Her staff wouldnāt have - allegedly - revealed a complainants name to Salmond.
They would have done things the right way. 6/13
Thatās pure spin. Iām not interested in either.
I care if the First Minister lied though. That matters. 7/13
Letās be clear, Salmond is not a good man. His acquittal doesnāt change that. He did things that are out of order.
Nobody blames Sturgeon for his actions.
We blame her for lying about what she knew & when. 8/13
But the evidence is apparently backed up by credible people. Well respected people in legal and media circles, professionals.
Itās not Salmondās word against Sturgeon.
Itās a number of peopleās word against hers alone. 9/13
No more spin, no more hiding, no more shutting down scrutiny with cleverly worded statements.
Letās get some straight yes or no answers. 10/13
This is a straight yes/no question, there are no legal repercussions to answering it. 11/13
Was the original statement ā that they āknewā of complaints ā correct or incorrect, in the your view?
This is a straight question. It can be answered without getting into any details. 12/13
Again there are no legal repercussions to answering them.
@NicolaSturgeon - letās finally hear the truth. 13/13
More from Health
this simple, counter narrative fact keeps cropping up all over the world.
hospital and ICU utilization has been and remains low this year.
it's terribly curious that so few of these monitoring tools provide historical baselines.
getting them is like pulling teeth.
we might think of this as an oversight until you see stuff like this:
this woman was arrested for filming and sharing the fact that their are empty hospitals in the UK.
that's full blown soviet. what possible honest purpose does that
this is the action of a police state and a propaganda ministry, not a well intentioned government and a public heath agency.
"we cannot let people see the truth for fear they might base their actions on real facts" is not much of a mantra for just governance.
90% full ICU sounds scary until you realize that 90-100% full is normal in flu season.
staffed ICU beds are expensive to leave empty. it's like flying with 15% of the plane empty. hospitals don't do that.
and all US hospitals are mandated to be able to flex to 120% ICU.
the US is currently at historically low ICU utilization for this time of year.
61% is "you're all going to go out of business" territory as is 66% full hospital use.
can you blame them for mining CARES act money? they'll die without it.
hospital and ICU utilization has been and remains low this year.
it's terribly curious that so few of these monitoring tools provide historical baselines.
getting them is like pulling teeth.
It took a Freedom of Information request but @Covid19DataUK acquired 2017-2019 averages for England hospitalizations.
— Yinon Weiss (@yinonw) December 31, 2020
2020 had 18% fewer hospitalizations than prior years.
All around the world, using hospital data without context of prior years is just a fear generating lie. pic.twitter.com/DJDpqhIQuw
we might think of this as an oversight until you see stuff like this:
this woman was arrested for filming and sharing the fact that their are empty hospitals in the UK.
that's full blown soviet. what possible honest purpose does that
this is the action of a police state and a propaganda ministry, not a well intentioned government and a public heath agency.
"we cannot let people see the truth for fear they might base their actions on real facts" is not much of a mantra for just governance.
90% full ICU sounds scary until you realize that 90-100% full is normal in flu season.
staffed ICU beds are expensive to leave empty. it's like flying with 15% of the plane empty. hospitals don't do that.
and all US hospitals are mandated to be able to flex to 120% ICU.
the US is currently at historically low ICU utilization for this time of year.
61% is "you're all going to go out of business" territory as is 66% full hospital use.
can you blame them for mining CARES act money? they'll die without it.
Before we get too far into 2021, I thought Iād write a thread recapping some of the research that came out of my lab in 2020. Most of this work was led by my talented team of graduate students, Kerrianne Morrison, @kmdebrabander, and @DesiRJones.
Back in January, a news story was published about Kerrianneās study showing improved social interaction outcomes for autistic adults when paired with another autistic partner.
A detailed thread about the study and a link to the paper can be found here (feel free to DM me your email address if youād like a copy of the full paper for this study or any of our studies):
Another paper published early in 2020 (it appeared a few months earlier online) showed that traditional standalone tasks of social cognition are less predictive of functional and social skills among autistic adults than commonly assumed in autism research.
Next, @kmdebrabander led and published an innovative study about how well autistic and non-autistic adults can predict their own cognitive and social cognitive performance.
Back in January, a news story was published about Kerrianneās study showing improved social interaction outcomes for autistic adults when paired with another autistic partner.
A detailed thread about the study and a link to the paper can be found here (feel free to DM me your email address if youād like a copy of the full paper for this study or any of our studies):
In our new paper out today, autistic adults held a \u201cget to know you\u201d conversation with an unfamiliar autistic or typically-developing (TD) person. We were curious: would social interaction outcomes differ when their partner was also autistic? THREAD https://t.co/4koqUKV9G1
— Noah Sasson (@Noahsasson) December 11, 2019
Another paper published early in 2020 (it appeared a few months earlier online) showed that traditional standalone tasks of social cognition are less predictive of functional and social skills among autistic adults than commonly assumed in autism research.
How well does social cognition predict functional and social skills in autism? Our new paper attempts to answer this question. This thread summarizes why we conducted the study, what we found, and why I think it\u2019s important. https://t.co/KB1nIpK0M2
— Noah Sasson (@Noahsasson) August 16, 2019
Next, @kmdebrabander led and published an innovative study about how well autistic and non-autistic adults can predict their own cognitive and social cognitive performance.
New by @kmdebrabander and our lab: Autistic adults don\u2019t differ from non-autistic adults in the accuracy of their self-assessment on general cognitive tasks but are less accurate on social cognitive tasks. This however was unrelated to social functioning https://t.co/0MrqMKKO0r
— Noah Sasson (@Noahsasson) September 20, 2020
I applaud the #EUCancerPlan *BUT* caution: putting #meat š„© (a nourishing, evolutionary food) in the same box as š¬ to solve a contemporary health challenge, would be basing policy on assumptions rather than robust data.
#FollowTheScience yes, but not just part of it!
THREADš
1/ Granted, some studies have pointed to ASSOCIATIONS of HIGH intake of red & processed meats with (slightly!) increased colorectal cancer incidence. Also, @WHO/IARC is often mentioned in support (usually hyperbolically so).
But, letās have a closer look at all this! š
2/ First, meat being āassociatedā with cancer is very different from stating that meat CAUSES cancer.
Unwarranted use of causal language is widespread in nutritional sciences, posing a systemic problem & undermining credibility.
3/ Thatās because observational data are CONFOUNDED (even after statistical adjustment).
Healthy user bias is a major problem. Healthy middle classes are TOLD to eat less red meat (due to historical rather than rational reasons, cf link). So, they
4/ Whatās captured here is sociology, not physiology.
Health-focused Westerners eat less red meat, whereas those who donāt adhere to dietary advice tend to have unhealthier lifestyles.
That tells us very little about meat AS SUCH being responsible for disease.
#FollowTheScience yes, but not just part of it!
THREADš
\U0001f534LIVE \U0001f4c5Today \u23f012:00 CET
— EU_HEALTH - #EUCancerPlan (@EU_Health) February 3, 2021
We are presenting today the #EUCancerPlan as part of a strong \U0001f1ea\U0001f1fa#HealthUnion
Follow the presentation live here: https://t.co/Cr8ATvzNkg#WorldCancerDay pic.twitter.com/zdByuklWV6
1/ Granted, some studies have pointed to ASSOCIATIONS of HIGH intake of red & processed meats with (slightly!) increased colorectal cancer incidence. Also, @WHO/IARC is often mentioned in support (usually hyperbolically so).
But, letās have a closer look at all this! š
2/ First, meat being āassociatedā with cancer is very different from stating that meat CAUSES cancer.
Unwarranted use of causal language is widespread in nutritional sciences, posing a systemic problem & undermining credibility.
3/ Thatās because observational data are CONFOUNDED (even after statistical adjustment).
Healthy user bias is a major problem. Healthy middle classes are TOLD to eat less red meat (due to historical rather than rational reasons, cf link). So, they
4/ Whatās captured here is sociology, not physiology.
Health-focused Westerners eat less red meat, whereas those who donāt adhere to dietary advice tend to have unhealthier lifestyles.
That tells us very little about meat AS SUCH being responsible for disease.
