Dear #MedTwitter please, please, if you are a licensed medical professional and/or in school to be, do NOT delete your tweets or comply with anyone telling you to do so. It will harm you far more than leaving them up and explaining. Nothing is ever deleted. Can be used in court.
You can decide whether you trust my advice/PSA
https://t.co/21rQMi8ljS
Shame will whisper to you "delete, delete..hide it..be ashamed"
NO
WRONG knee jerk reaction from when we were living in primitive conditions.
First step for ALL of that is trust
Be trustworthy
Do NOT react to your reptilian brain
Think it through. What is your purpose here? (see above)
What is in your LONG TERM best interest?
Hiding/deleting only makes you look not trustworthy, poor judgment, unreliable.
https://t.co/0jfLqo7xlF
https://t.co/k6UwYwV4e3
Now that I am at @MIT & @MITSloanFellows the classmates who "get it" are engineers who must maintain licenses.
Is a #mindset: accountability
Most importantly, NEVER be goaded into being unethical.
You all training on electronic only may feel it is easy to just hit "undo"/delete.
https://t.co/veFz4j1Pqg
What I was taught, back when we had paper charts, was to put a single line though, initial, and date. Then correct. When compliance types come through they will have MORE confidence in you, in fact. You had the good sense to self assess BEFORE they got there and adjust/improve.
— Umbereen S. Nehal, MD, MPH (@usnehal) December 20, 2020
YOU define you.
Your credibility is based on consistent data points.
The data points I mean are of being factual, using vetted/verified/validated facts, leaving UP when you make a mistake.
Have a "paper trail" that shows transparency & honesty.
https://t.co/umWeKEtieT
Proud of you
— Umbereen S. Nehal, MD, MPH (@usnehal) June 30, 2020
All of us should keep a CV of failure to destigmatize failure. https://t.co/pSMZq37X6B pic.twitter.com/rQe0SpWZLc
That is the other thing, please refocus on impact.
Will some people do "gotcha' screenshots? Yes.
It is impossible to avoid all misinterpretation or bad faith misuse.
If that worries you, then just post less or not at all. No one *has* to have a social media presence.
That is just the world we live in.
It's not easy.
Titrate your exposure/risk to your comfort.
Gave me A LOT of practice early in life about navigating these complexities prior to social media screenshots.
https://t.co/YoextwHK2u
I am amused by anyone on #MedTwitter who thinks I can be easily intimidated. Chile.. first I am Gen X. Then, I have lived through having gas masks distributed in case chemical war happened (when living in an oil compound). Then I have lived in places you hear gunshots routinely. pic.twitter.com/sqOkSRi9xV
— Umbereen S. Nehal, MD, MPH (@usnehal) December 27, 2020
If you lose your cool, you lose
If you get nervous about an "error" or by an overt or an implied threat, you lose
If you doubt yourself & backtrack (delete), you lose
Don't set your own self up to lose
these are my values: marginalized populations, multidisciplinary, #mentalhealth, etc https://t.co/tVjZNbgsVY
If I get one tweet or a few tweets wrong, will it end a career? It is possible. Anything is possible. Unlikely, given my track record.
https://t.co/qbUGmmkoQq
often getting bad advice from:
non-clinician “consultants”
or
faculty from this era of old boy network where they *could* delete, erase, and make inconvenient people disappear (kill someone’s career or professional reputation)
“growing up” professionally in an era of high accountability & high transparency
You aren’t a gray-haired professor w/old boy network who can leverage contacts to do #MedBikini types of ethics shortcuts & gamble not caught
I have to check off every single box in exactly the right order = 100+ edits
if I don’t, my high-quality publication that gets glowing reviewer comments
still rejected/delayed
many women experience this @JulieSilverMD
More from Health
I think @SamAdlerBell in his quest to be the contrarian on Fauci gets several things wrong here. 1/
First, the failure last year actually was driven by the White House, the #Trump inner circle. Watch what's happening now, the US' scientific and public health infrastructure is creaking back to life. 2/
I think Sam underestimates the decimation of many of our health agencies over the past four years and the establishment of ideological control over them during the pandemic. 3/
I also am puzzled why Tony gets the blame for not speaking up, etc. Robert Redfield, Brett Giroir, Deb Birx, Jerome Adams, Alex Azar all could have done the same. 4/
Several of these people Bob Redfield, Brett Giroir, Alex Azar were led by craven ambition, Jerome Adams by cowardice, but I do think Deb Birx and Tony tried as institutionalists, insiders to make a difference. 5/
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) January 30, 2021
First, the failure last year actually was driven by the White House, the #Trump inner circle. Watch what's happening now, the US' scientific and public health infrastructure is creaking back to life. 2/
I think Sam underestimates the decimation of many of our health agencies over the past four years and the establishment of ideological control over them during the pandemic. 3/
I also am puzzled why Tony gets the blame for not speaking up, etc. Robert Redfield, Brett Giroir, Deb Birx, Jerome Adams, Alex Azar all could have done the same. 4/
Several of these people Bob Redfield, Brett Giroir, Alex Azar were led by craven ambition, Jerome Adams by cowardice, but I do think Deb Birx and Tony tried as institutionalists, insiders to make a difference. 5/
This is a limited point about availability of efficacy data for vaccines under development in the context of the approval for CovidShield and Covaxin in India.
There have been many so-called experts on the idiotbox opining about apparent availability of P III data which 1/n
2/n apparently the SEC had access to based on which it "supposedly" approved Covaxin. Another argument that is prevalent is other regulators (US FDA and MHRA) also approved vaccines based on P II data alone. Let me give you a few facts so that you can make your own decision.
3/n The protocols for both mRNA vaccines are publicly available. You can check. Both protocols *define* when the interim analysis will be done. This is not subjective. They clearly define how many infections need to be documented before the Data Safety Monitoring Board meets.
4/n Find the protocols for the bridging study for CovidShield and Covaxin and look for a similar milestone.
Here is one set of efficacy data post the interim analysis of a mRNA vaccine.
Source: https://t.co/BAPnP3PxEb
5/n This data was analyzed post the interim analysis where the blind was broken by the DSMB. Now ask yourself this question:
How does the SEC, or the sponsor of these studies, or the experts who are offering their opinion liberally on the idiotbox know what the efficacy is
There have been many so-called experts on the idiotbox opining about apparent availability of P III data which 1/n
2/n apparently the SEC had access to based on which it "supposedly" approved Covaxin. Another argument that is prevalent is other regulators (US FDA and MHRA) also approved vaccines based on P II data alone. Let me give you a few facts so that you can make your own decision.
3/n The protocols for both mRNA vaccines are publicly available. You can check. Both protocols *define* when the interim analysis will be done. This is not subjective. They clearly define how many infections need to be documented before the Data Safety Monitoring Board meets.
4/n Find the protocols for the bridging study for CovidShield and Covaxin and look for a similar milestone.
Here is one set of efficacy data post the interim analysis of a mRNA vaccine.
Source: https://t.co/BAPnP3PxEb
5/n This data was analyzed post the interim analysis where the blind was broken by the DSMB. Now ask yourself this question:
How does the SEC, or the sponsor of these studies, or the experts who are offering their opinion liberally on the idiotbox know what the efficacy is