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
EFD has been subject so some of the worst racist abuse I've every seen- he's consistently treated as if he were less than human. If you're suggesting that he shouldn't be subjected to this because it looks 'similar to' abuse & 'garners sympathy', then this is a really bad take.
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
I completely agree that people should be challenged based on the facts and evidence they present. But lets not diminish actual targeting and abuse that people have experiences, as something that's helped them 'garner sympathy'.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
And if you honestly don't feel he's been treated unfairly - then I suggest you look at the abuse & personal attacks he has consistently receives on media & from colleagues. If you feel that is fair, then worth reflecting on why you think it's ok for anyone to be subjected to this
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @dgurdasani1 @CT_Bergstrom
I obviously do not condone racist abuse directed at anyone. I do still think that he has been careless and alarmist, prone to too many errors that could be solved by reading the paper rather than cherry-picking from badly-written articles and very resistant to feedback on this.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes
I don't see every version of everything, and to the degree what you say is happening (I'm not doubting it at all; I'm sure there is a lot of that), of course I'm opposed! I commented on something specific: how solely relying on credentials as dunking mechanism can fail.
-
-
EFD has done a lot of public service, but he has sometimes been wrong... tell me who has not? Including some of the people who have been most vicious in attacking him, only themselves to be caught being egregiously, ridiculously wrong--about factual, technical matters.
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.