Read on Twitter
BC’s Supreme Court did not sound impressed with the Fraser Institute’s health care expert in today’s ruling upholding public health care.
The judge said the expert had “no academic affiliation, no peer reviewed publications and no training or experience in medical issues.”
The judge said the expert had “no academic affiliation, no peer reviewed publications and no training or experience in medical issues.”
The judge concluded that the Fraser Institute’s expert is “minimally qualified as an expert.”
After looking at his qualifications, the judge said the expert made “embellishments of his experience” relating to claims about “being an expert witness” and doing “non-partisan work.”
After looking at his qualifications, the judge said the expert made “embellishments of his experience” relating to claims about “being an expert witness” and doing “non-partisan work.”
The judge added that he “seriously question(s)” the idea that the Fraser Institute’s wait-time surveys can be “relied upon as providing reliable data,” pointing out their research has some “fundamental statistical issues.”
Even though the BC Supreme Court said it found their research “problematic,” Postmedia and other corporate outlets often regurgitate Fraser Institute press releases without any counterpoints from real health experts.
My sincerest apologies to the @FraserInstitute’s comms team for these tweets.
