WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 33916121

(no title)

IfOnlyYouKnew | 3 years ago

Well, first of all, “tweets” don’t “trend”. Terms do. So this description feels off, already.

Next, I wonder, but don’t care enough to look it up, if this guy is adequately summarized by only mentioning his concern for children?

Screw that, I did look him up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya#COVID-19_pa.... He was one of the people behind the “Great” Barrington Declaration and, kn the early months of the pandemic, argued, among other things, that COVID is rather harmless. He also took money from the airline industry without disclosing as much in his publications.

It’s arguable if Bhattacharya’s reach needed to be limited. What’s really hard to argue is that the thing about children is an adequate characterization of his statements during the pandemic. This is prime evidence that this story is not presenting anything close to a fair interpretation of the documents they have been given, and that you have, unfortunately, fallen for it.

discuss

order

scifibestfi|3 years ago

He's a Dr. and a Stanford professor of medicine. The Great Barrington Declaration was signed by almost a million doctors. They were warning about the harm lockdowns would do to kids and they were correct.

Even if they weren't, this would still be unacceptable.

anigbrowl|3 years ago

The Great Barrington Declaration was signed by almost a million doctors

You're off by an order of magnitude and then some. Also, none of the numbers they do claim are verifiable. https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/

You know, when you make a specific claim like that it's really worth the 30 seconds it takes to check it again to verify your memory is correct.

joshuamorton|3 years ago

According to its own website, the great barrington declaration was signed by around 15,000 doctors.

philjohn|3 years ago

Sounds like appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

IfOnlyYouKnew|3 years ago

As I said, it’s debatable if the guy’s reach needed to be limited, the point you are arguing.

What’s not debatable is that the breathless outrage-bait under discussion misrepresented the case for limiting the Dr’s reach with a straw-man argument, and so did you.

yucky|3 years ago

[deleted]

lern_too_spel|3 years ago

That article points to a study that supports her claim, testing healthcare workers to demonstrate that they weren't infected, not merely asymptomatic.

No Googling necessary. It's right there in the article you linked to.

sergiotapia|3 years ago

All of that is irrelevant. Twitter had a secret blacklist. Gross behavior from a gross company.

etchalon|3 years ago

EVERY social network has a "secret" blacklist. Every. single. one.

michaelgrosner2|3 years ago

Why is that gross? It's their speech to decide what they want to promote or not promote. Why are you anti-free speech?