In his latest paper about COVID infection fatality rates, John Ioannidis does not address the critiques from @GidMK, but instead engages in the most egregious gatekeeping that I have ever seen in a scientific paper.pic.twitter.com/P08sFIovD6
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I'm pointing out not because I think he is being treated unfairly or that he's more right etc. but because that pattern looks fairly similar to this incident from the outside, and ends up not debunking his points or convincing people (if anything, probably garners sympathy),
(Disclosure: yeah, I'm also an outsider writing on all this but I really don't mind dunking (I'm tenured!) and I ABSOLUTELY welcome debunking: I pay people to debunk me on my own newsletter. This is genuinely a friendly point on how things look from the outside, not about me).
My issue with EFD’s credentials is that he presents himself (or at least makes no attempt to be clear) as an infectious disease expert; his credentials aren’t *why* he’s wrong, of course. But he shouldn’t misrepresent the fact that he’s a well-I formed layman in ID.
Credentials are relevant to discussions of public trust in dissemination of information. They’re a proxy we use for expertise. Scientists should be clear.
there is a concerted effort to attack and undermine efd employed by the aier and the lobbies that want occupied buildings. Almost a non-sequitir: you are fooled if you agree mers is airborne yet not cov2. Open your eyes.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.