John's defenders have done this in the past, but I'm stunned that he'd stoop to the same. Science doesn't work like that, to say the least. Gideon's degree status is irrelevant and in the entirety of my career I've never seen this issue raised in a scientific paper before.
-
Show this thread
-
The condescension and hypocrisy here is mind-boggling.pic.twitter.com/ppaLt4nt9T
28 replies 72 retweets 1,121 likesShow this thread -
And as for non-PhD authors? I wrote four papers as a PhD student in which no author had an advanced degree. Theor. Pop. Biol., Phil. Trans. Royal Society, PNAS, Genetics. Cited 86, 116, 178, and 214 times respectively. Maybe they're all crap, but not b/c of my degree status.pic.twitter.com/VVV8js7Les
15 replies 55 retweets 1,109 likesShow this thread -
Anyway, you can read it for yourself. It's published in the journal for which Ioannidis previously served as Editor in Chief. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554 … Therein John claims the IFR for COVID is 0.15%. By official counts, 0.166% of the US population has already died of COVID.pic.twitter.com/NhEI15BhhI
98 replies 145 retweets 1,235 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @CT_Bergstrom
100% agree this is no way to conduct a scientific discussion. I hope this logic is extended. For example, people keep dunking on EFD because he has a "nutritional epi" PhD. I do think he's wrong (quite often) but because he is wrong, not that he lacks just the right credentials.+
4 replies 1 retweet 44 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @CT_Bergstrom
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),
2 replies 0 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @CT_Bergstrom
(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).
1 reply 0 retweets 29 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @CT_Bergstrom
I love you're writings and you've been on the cutting edge alot. As an outsider observer the insiders as well as the outsiders writing about it, I disagree with you. I think the "dunking" is calling bs, which carl does (as well as correcting...
3 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
.. himself when necessary). But he's been very objective, as have others, and JI has an outsized influence AND has been wrong (without, critically, ever adjusting his hypothesis, a kief in science.) I usually agree with you and learn from you, but if you're looking..
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
... for objective debunkers for your newsletter, I'd love that side hustle! *Shuffles off* Seriously, thanks for your reporting throughout.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Find something I wrote, pitch a paragraph debunking it substantively (not in a debate club way). I do pay, and real rates probably higher than almost all freelancing. Stronger the argument, the happier I am to pay.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @CT_Bergstrom
Will do. Saw this after my last tweet. Thanks again!
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.