Yes, I know that the article refutes several of Bigtree's claims, but there's also a heck of a lot of false balance too. As my good bud @MarkHoofnagle will tell you, letting a crank make his claims and then (sort of) refuting them is a bad way to combat antivax nonsense. 2/
-
Show this thread
-
What this technique accomplishes, more than anything else, is to lead the reader to remember the claims while forgetting much of the refutations. 3/
1 reply 1 retweet 17 likesShow this thread -
Worse, the structure and tone of the article are more that of a celebrity profile, specifically that of a controversial celebrity. The thing is, Bigtree is not controversial. There is no scientific controversy about his antivax views. He is a dangerous crank, an antivaxer. 4/
1 reply 1 retweet 19 likesShow this thread -
It's not all bad. It is interesting to learn of Bigtree's background. I knew about his work on
@DrPhil and@TheDoctors, neither of which are shows that train one to think critically about medicine. 5/1 reply 1 retweet 16 likesShow this thread -
Particularly amusing was
@delbigtree's bragging about reading medical journals during his time working for@DrPhil and@TheDoctors. His misinterpretation of vaccine literature is epic and demonstrates that he, for all his bragging, he's never understood science, not really. 6/1 reply 4 retweets 36 likesShow this thread -
Oh, sure, working for
@DrPhil and@TheDoctors taught him how to do stories with at best a superficial mixture of understanding and misunderstanding tarted up with sensationalistic nonsense, much like what he did on@vaxxedthemovie. 7/1 reply 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
But even that part of the story is problematic. You and I know that Bigtree's full of shit when he proclaims his great knowledge of the medical literature, but the average reader doesn't. We laugh—and rightfully so—at Bigtree's claim, but the average reader doesn't. 8/
1 reply 1 retweet 15 likesShow this thread -
Another problematic part of the article is how it portrays Bigtree as a rockstar among antivaxers, a celebrity. People listen to celebrity. At the least, he comes across as appealing, rather than the arrogant, self-righteous jerk that he really is. 9/
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread -
Particularly irritating is the way that the article concludes with a quote from Bigtree: "All of this is coming to a head, this is such an exciting time. Do you feel it? Do you feel what’s happening? This one is not going to be easy it would be boring if it was..." 10/
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread -
Continued: "This is our time. You’ve got to feel it. It’s so exciting." 11/
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread
Seriously? Ending with a quote from Bigtree about how great it is to be an antivaxer now? How hopeful this antivaxer is? Horrible! That's why I said this article is basically free publicity for antivaxers. It's not quite a celebrity puff piece, but it flirts with it. 12/12
-
-
Replying to @gorskon
It’s certainly not a puff piece. Just because you ignore someone who is spreading misinformation doesn’t mean they are not there. Thousands of people listen to his misinformation every day. This reports out his lack of credentials and incorrect conclusions.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @JFKucinich @gorskon
But by all means, don’t let me stop you from yelling on Twitter.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
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.