Because they're mostly not scientists, and few of the actual scientists are epidemiologists, and because they are spewing disinformation. #barringtondeclaration is propaganda, not science. 1/
#COVID19 deniers and conspiracy theorists are taking a page from a old crank playbook. Does anyone remember "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" and "Physicians and Surgeons Who Dissent from Darwinism"? These were similar "declarations" against evolution and for creationism. 2/
Or what about the open letter by the "Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis" calling for a "thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis [HIV-AIDS] be conducted by a suitable independent group"? 3/ sidasante.com/contacts/group…
Or what about the numerous "open letters" or "declarations" by climate science deniers, most of the signatories of which are almost never actual climate scientists? 4/
The bottom line is that "declarations" and "open letters" like this are a favorite tactic used by science denialists to give the impression that their pseudoscience or quackery has scientific support. Almost always, few of the signatories are actual experts in the field. 5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Dumbest idea ever: A vaccine "debate" between two lawyers, @AlanDersh and @RobertKennedyJr, neither of whom has significant scientific knowledge about vaccines, and one of whom is rabidly antivaccine. 1/ ageofautism.com/2020/07/vaccin…
This sort of nonsense is what I like to call, "All Truth Comes from Live Public Debate." It's a favorite crank trope that serves two purposes. 2/ respectfulinsolence.com/2013/04/26/all…
Basically, this tactic serves two purposes for the crank. First, it allows cranks to appear on the same stage/venue as seemingly an equal to an actual authority, thus giving the appearance that their viewpoint is worth serious consideration scientifically or based on evidence. 3/
So there's a new disinformation campaign going around about masks in which @FoxNews and its sycophants, toadies, and lackeys cite @WHO recommendations that only people who are sick or who are taking care of patients with #COVID19 should wear a mask. 1/ foxnews.com/world/who-guid…
The headline of the article seems to imply that the recommendation is new, but the videos on the @WHO website linked to date back to early March and February. This part gives the game away: “The recommendation has not changed…” 2/
Some outlets, like @NYPost, ran the story and didn't even acknowledge that the @WHO recommendation is at least three months old, cutting out the part about the recommendation not having changed. 3/ nypost.com/2020/05/28/hea…
This is not new. It has actually been a long time coming. I've been writing about how antivaxxers have coopted far right rhetoric and have been becoming more extreme. Unfortunately #COVID19 has accelerated the process. 1/
For instance, in the 2016 election @delbigtree visited Michigan and ranted on about standing and, if necessary, dying for freedom, as his group went around buttonholing state legislators. 2/ respectfulinsolence.com/2016/10/28/nob…
Just a word. Although I first thought it was a DDoS attack, Cloudflare support says no. It's just a crapton of traffic. This post has gone viral in a way that (I think) no other post in my 15 year blogging career has. 1/
Even with Cloudflare the site has been intermittently crashing under the load, and the hosting service is working on it. (My plan is too basic and probably needs to be upgraded, at least temporarily.) The theme had to be changed because the usual theme was causing problems. 2/
A crapton of new commenters have infiltrated, many of them #COVID19 conspiracy theorists and Judy Mikovits fans. I haven't been able to moderate comments for a couple of hours now because I can't log onto WordPress. 3/
This is a common straw man attack, that randomized controlled trials are the only valid form of scientific evidence. Oddly enough, that is EXACTLY what proponents of science-based medicine argue against, just not in the way our friend here thinks. I'll briefly explain. 1/
I've used a term, "methodolatry," to describe the "obscene worship of the double blind RCT as the only valid method of scientific investigation," and some extreme EBM proponents do occasionally exhibit this quality. They are the minority, however. 2/
We all know that sometimes double blind RCTs can't be done for various reasons. Some RCTs would be unethical; for instance, using a placebo is usually unethical if an effective therapy exists. Sometimes, logistically it's just not possible. 3/