徐蕴芸的微博说：
‘我相信中医学，但不相信绝大多数中医师，因为我不相信一个读书始终不如我的人，掌握中医会比我掌握西医要好。同理，我也不相信中医西医都没学过的某些人，对医学的见解会超过我。每个人都可以选择自己相信的对象，但医学这件事情上，这不是一个看过书和文献就能了解的学科，而是一个庞大的系统。’
徐蕴芸之前还有更搞笑的言论，认为自己协和毕业牛上天，协和没那么排斥中医，而同是松鼠会一员的李清晨西医批评中医是因为上的学校没她的好。
结果被批评中医者嘲笑一番（我看大家对女生始终要比男生客气，换个男的这么说早就骂文傻弱智SB了）。
以前没看到姬十三表态，所以一开始大家猜松鼠会不批评中医是不是想先避面正面得罪中医支持者，先打名气，以后再批评中医。现在看看姬十三的言论就清楚了，松鼠会对中医的暧昧态度是跟领导者有关的。
姬十三微博力挺徐蕴芸说：‘傲慢的人会因为傲慢而成为小圈子，所以，他们不重要’
土摩托回话也比较狠：‘讲道理最重要。那些不屑于讲道理，还要装作自己很有理的人，骨子里才是真傲慢。’
其实说穿了就好，说穿了大家就知道不是一路人，就知道没有心平气和讲道理的必要了。
徐蕴芸的所谓‘没学过中医的人，对中医的见解不会超过我’是中医信徒常见的一种辩解：你没学过中医，你没资格批评中医，你要谦虚，不要武断云云。
对这种低IQ人问的问题，看看方舟子06年写好的答案：‘中医批判小问答’（http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/sohu/zhongyifaq.txt）：
‘我不是大厨，就不能说饭菜不好吃吗？没有疯过，就不能说有人疯了吗？没有入过邪教，就不能批邪教吗？没有学过算命，就不能说算命是迷信吗？任何人只要掌握了科学思想和科学方法，了解现代医学知识，就都有资格批中医。如果我对中医有任何误解、歪曲之处，欢迎具体地指出来。’
同样还要指出的是：要求对明知道是伪科学骗术的东西讲‘宽容’‘谦卑’，不是什么宽容和谦逊，而是糊涂、傻，又或者是懦弱。
和中医信徒相通的神学人士也喜欢用同样的低IQ辩解方式：‘你没深入的学过神学，所以你没资格批评宗教云云。’
P.Z.Myers对此写过一个幽默的回答，后来被理查德道金斯收入到The God Delusion一书中，在此与同好共享、共勉：
（不翻译了，这年头你要想不被中医骗不被神棍骗，学英语是必须的）
"I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, "On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat". We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.
Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics."