"[Italians are] sick with inflammatory disorders. They got... an untested new form of influenza vaccine that had 4 different strains of influenza, including the highly pathogenic H1N1. That vaccine was grown in a cell line, a dog cell line. Dogs have lots of coronaviruses." 10/
-
Show this thread
-
"There is no evidence that links any influenza vaccine, or a dog coronavirus, to Italy’s COVID-19 epidemic." 11/
1 reply 6 retweets 98 likesShow this thread -
"Wearing the mask literally activates your own virus. You’re getting sick from your own reactivated coronavirus expressions, and if it happens to be SARS-CoV-2, then you’ve got a big problem." 12/
1 reply 5 retweets 82 likesShow this thread -
"It’s not clear what Mikovits means by “coronavirus expressions.” There is no evidence that wearing a mask can activate viruses and make people sick." eof/
7 replies 11 retweets 145 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @doctorow
Good of them to post refutations - healthier than censorship. We're seeing full Streisand Effect going on here. That being said, looks like most of their claims are "there's no evidence of that", but they've also not read her book... so doesn't make a strong case either way
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @clarkgwillison @doctorow
"There's no evidence of that" is the only thing you can say when someone just makes something up and presents it as true The logic you're displaying is exactly how cranks get a foothold ("Well can you prove it DIDN'T happen")
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @doctorow
That's very true, which is why it's complicated Because it's also said when there is evidence being ignored or dismissed They would have a stronger case for "there's no evidence" if they had read her book, which they admit they haven't (disclaimer: I haven't either)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Actually, I'd modify that: "there's no evidence" is what people say when they're overreaching trying to make a negative case, precisely for reasons you stated (can't prove a negative) "We're unaware of any evidence" is the objective way to word it that avoids the overreach
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @clarkgwillison @doctorow
No, assuming that if you can't find any evidence on a cursory search it doesn't exist is, in fact, the rational and correct way to move through life
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
If someone on the subway tells me he's Jesus I don't ask him what his evidence is for his claims and seek to give them a full evaluation I ignore him and move to another car as soon as I can
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
If you were to tell me over Twitter you have the cure for COVID-19 the correct response is to say "No you don't" and report your account to get shut down It's your job to overcome the threshold of reflexive skepticism, which is a good and necessary thing
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @doctorow
Claiming "there's no evidence for X" after a cursory Google search may be a standard that works for you, or even other private individuals I'd maintain it's not a standard that should be adopted by a science publication that wishes to be seen as serious though
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Especially because they're discussing someone with a PhD in the field, not some smelly nutter on the subway
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.