Omg I am LOVING this story TL:DR - it is not a study, published in a journal dedicated to unusual hypotheses, and not really "from a major university" 1/n https://twitter.com/naomirwolf/status/1383218165165936643 …
-
-
3/n Digging a little bit deeper, some of the stuff in here is pretty obviously wrong. For example, this incorrect statement about 99% mild/asymptomatic is referenced to Worldometers (not a specific graph, just the site)pic.twitter.com/Y95NqV3ICn
Show this thread -
4/n This excerpt in quotation marks is not a direct quotation, and is given totally out of context from the source article by Fauci et alpic.twitter.com/Y2NwJiBOmd
Show this thread -
5/n So the piece is wrong about COVID-19. But it also appears to be wrong about masks quite a lot
Show this thread -
6/n For example, here's a paragraph where it is simply assumed that facemasks cause chronic hypoxemia/hypercapnia. The four references are 3 physiology textbooks and another review piecepic.twitter.com/g08YcWwuRA
Show this thread -
7/n The WHO document referenced here was updated December 2020 and now completely contradicts both this assertion and indeed the entire paperpic.twitter.com/34kpeqBKzr
Show this thread -
8/n So, I think it's fair to say that this opinion piece probably doesn't represent either a scientific study or even really evidence per se, and it gets a lot wrong about both masks and COVID-19 How did it get published?
Show this thread -
9/n Well, the journal itself gives us a hint The description alone of Medical Hypotheses is pretty interesting stuffpic.twitter.com/VtaKiEWHii
Show this thread -
10/n Reading some previous work published by the paper gives you an idea of what kind of "novel, radical" ideas which "would be rejected" elsewhere they sometimes put outpic.twitter.com/kPWt8bV0hN
Show this thread -
11/n (In the journal's defense, they do also put out lots of less fringe hypotheses, they appear to take seriously the idea of giving everyone's ideas a forum for discussion)
Show this thread -
12/n As to the Stanford connection? Well, the author appears to be a physical therapist at a hospital near Stanford that has an affiliation for teaching purposes with the universitypic.twitter.com/XentFPtpUH
Show this thread -
13/n We can split hairs, but I'm not sure this qualifies as saying that the study is produced by Stanford
Show this thread -
14/n Anyway, regardless of what you think about masks, the paper has numerous errors and is probably not a useful resource for determining whether to use them or not
Show this thread -
15/n None of this has stopped anyone citing the "study" as evidence of anything, of course, because no one checks the facts of things they agree with!
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.