Not to be confused with content creators who absolutely deserve to get paid for their content. He is not developing original content or creating anything. This is not considered ethical in our field.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @vlamers
piling on efd, saying he’s a scammer and creating nothing, when he has been tireless reporting on this stuff for a wide audience more accurately than the vast majority of publications, is considered unethical to me!!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanielleFong
It sounds like you are one of many who have been misled by his confident and persuasive demeanor. He is a nutritionist, not an infectious disease expert. And he is repeatedly wrong. He has no developed content because he doesn’t have the expertise required to create it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vlamers
i’ve been following the pandemic closely since jan 2020, and put a huge amount of effort into it! i know enough about who has been right to have a basic accuracy rate in my head for people, eric has been way higher & earlier than most
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanielleFong
I understand that some of these are detailed scientific intricacies that may not be as easily seen or accessible to non-epidemiologists, but that’s why they are typically dealt with at scientific conferences and in peer review, not on Twitter. Clearly we let this go too long.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vlamers
your credentialism is showing.
one of the most accurate models for cases was developed by someone with no epidemiologist training, youyang gu. eric was raising the alarm while trained virologists and the WHO were insisting that no human to human contact had been proven...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanielleFong @vlamers
these specific virologists and institutions haven’t said any word of apology about misleading the public about human to human transmission, about airborne transmission, about travel bans effectiveness. it was efd & a bunch of amateur internet people that raise alarms weeks early
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanielleFong @vlamers
if you want to point fingers at why institutional support for public health is low, point at the institutions, point at yourselves! honestly infuriating to see this level of overconfidence and condescension from so called experts, this is a misuse and abuse of your credentials.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanielleFong
Epidemiologist isn’t a credential. It’s just a job. I don’t fault him for taking advantage of the pandemic to further his own fame and fortune, but charging ordinary scared people is not ok.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vlamers
well, he’s done the job better than most epidemiologists, who have by and large been wrong ahead of the facts on so much of the important stuff eric brought up — h-h transmission, aerosols, mutation rate / variants. evem vaccine/immune escape, which is partial.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
and he’s not charging anything for his twitter feed, it’s a voluntary thing, maybe with one tier of paid posts the ‘pros’ have been consistently messing up in the same direction over and over maybe it is the need for epis to protect their job and credibility over informing ppl
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
