The world’s top medical editors argue for climate action with core argument: Global heat deaths for 65+ increased 50+%
But don’t tell you that the number of 65+ has increased almost as much
Oops
bmj.com/content/374/bm…, bmj.com/content/374/bm…, thelancet.com/journals/lance…
The world’s top medical editors argue for climate action
With amateur mistake: they forget to adjust for more old people
They should correct their paper (but of course, it would also neuter it)
bmj.com/content/374/bm…, bmj.com/content/374/bm…, thelancet.com/journals/lance…
The world’s top medical editors for climate action
Vastly overstating heat deaths
And entirely ignoring dramatic reduction in cold deaths
How are we well informed by this?
bmj.com/content/374/bm…, bmj.com/content/374/bm…, thelancet.com/journals/lance… ihmeuw.org/5k7m
The world’s top medical editors argue for climate action
Misrepresent heat deaths, ignore much more dramatic decline in cold deaths
How are we well informed by this?
bmj.com/content/374/bm…, bmj.com/content/374/bm…, thelancet.com/journals/lance… ihmeuw.org/5k7m
Lots of real health challenges:
Covid 10-15m
Tuberculosis 1.5m/yr
Obesity ~3m/yr
Cardiovascular 18m/yr
Cancer 9.6m/yr
And we have these guys virtue-signaling we should first spend trillions on avoiding deaths in the tens of thousands?
Shameful
Here is their article with their first and core argument
apparently published in 233 medical journals including BMJ, the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, the East African Medical Journal, the Chinese Science Bulletin, etc?
bmj.com/content/374/bm…
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.