Here’s one example of a claim that @BretWeinstein & @HeatherEHeying made that doesn’t hold up to basic scrutiny. In the video below they claim that the CDC is artificially reducing positive tests for vaccinated people by using different PCR thresholds.
They cite this document as evidence. Claiming that it shows they are using a more stringent 28 PCR cycle threshold to identify positive cases for the vaccinated, as opposed to the more common ~35 cycles. More cycles = more chance to detect virus.
cdc.gov/vaccines/covid…
But this is simply misreading the document. This is not the threshold for a positive result, it’s the threshold for sending a specimen for genetic sequencing to identify the variant. Presumably because above that the sample is hard to extract a reliable sequence from.
This is made clear in the (2 page!) document and on the website that Heather and Bret cite in their episode notes. Yet they managed to misinterpret it and present it to their audience as a smoking gun of the CDC trying to tilt the scales in favor of vaccines.
This isn’t a novel argument by Bret and Heather either it is one that has been made by various anti vaccine advocates and COVID ‘skeptics’. There are already pieces rebutting it. See for example: healthfeedback.org/claimreview/pc…
You can also find this same skepticism from anti vaccine folks over PCR tests and the related claim that they are being used to artificially inflate the number of positive cases (for non-vaccinated) and already debunked by @gorskon back in November. sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-covid-19-ca…
Bret and Heather give the impression of being careful scientists inspecting technical details but in reality they are doing extremely superficial research and recycling standard anti vaxx talking points. And it does have an impact.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Chris Kavanagh

Chris Kavanagh Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @C_Kavanagh

24 Jun
Eric frames it as a virtue that he will continue to promote anyone, regardless of what they do or say, as long as they broadly fit within his self referential network. His obsession with cliques & self aggrandizing might be the first documented case of permanent teenage angst. Image
There is such a cloying desperation here that it’s almost tragic. But the depressing thing is that it seems to work with so many people. Eric might be recognized as a delusional narcissist in private DMs by people like Sam Harris, but they won’t ever say that publicly.
Somewhat depressingly it is probably the self serving right wing partisans, like Rubin, that Eric is still desperately pandering to, who can be most forthright in their criticism because Eric’s faux centrist patronage doesn’t bring them much.
Read 4 tweets
19 Jun
No, Taibbi has this completely wrong (shocking I know...).

If anyone spends time looking critically into Bret's content you quickly realise it is extremely similar to Alex Jones act just with a superficial veneer of scientific credibility.

The 'credentialed authorities'... Image
... that Bret interviews are mostly fringe conspiracy theorists. See for example his fawning interview with Geert Vanden Bossche, who claims the vaccines are likely destroying natural immunity, or the recent horror show with 'serial entrepreneur' Steve Kirsch who talked about...
...miscarriages after vaccination with babies heads being split in two.

Bret is the opposite of a careful scientist. He is a conspiracy theorist who just knows how to sound like a scientist.

Hence he claims to have had a Nobel prize discovery that was silenced, to have...
Read 5 tweets
16 Jun
Listen, if you watched Bret’s Ivermectin video and you still have any respect for his understanding of science… 😩. The dude doesn’t understand basic science. He may as well be wearing a white coat and a stethoscope. He’s a cosplay scientist.
Like the bald entrepreneur explains he heard a story from his carpet cleaner that he had a heart attack two minutes after getting the Pfizer vaaccine and the cleaner’s wife got a shakey hand after hers. He says this would be impossible if the vaccine was safe .
How is anyone with a basic understanding of science nodding along to that? 1) it’s second hand anecdotes, that they didn’t verify, 2) even if true there is no evidence of a causal relationship, 3) it is perfectly possible for the claims to be true and the vaccines to be safe.
Read 7 tweets
23 Apr
He would have expected Bret Weinstein to platform a fringe academic who is promoting unfounded fears about the vaccines?!? Am sure he will provide suitable critical pushback.

For those curious about the guest, see:
sciencebasedmedicine.org/countering-gee… pca.st/episode/4fe8d2…
Some more useful articles:
deplatformdisease.com/blog/addressin…
Read 5 tweets
12 Sep 20
Ok so #CynicalTheories Chapter 2: Applied Postmodernism. This chapter out of the gate feels thick with hyperbole. We are told: “The postmodernists sought to render absurd our ways of understanding, approaching, and living in the world and in societies.”
The heavily anthropomorphised ‘Theory’ is also up to no good. Bored with its adolescent stage of deconstructing everything, it has now entered its moody teens & wants to mess things up properly.
Lest the anthropomic metaphor be too subtle we get treated to an extended Agent Smith-esque rift on how postmodernism is actually like a contagious virus that mutates into new forms. Why do I get the feeling this is a James-heavy section & he was smirking all the time he wrote?
Read 36 tweets
31 Aug 20
So kicking off the chapter by chapter #CynicalTheories review/reaction-a-thon with a look at the Introduction. There’s quite a lot of ground covered over 9 pages so strap in. Image
The introduction starts with a rousing paean of ‘liberalism’ defined as a political philosophy that advocates political democracy, limitations on the powers of government, universal human rights, legal equality, freedom of expression, respect for viewpoint diversity & debate...
...respect for evidence and reason, the separation of church and state, & freedom of religion.

And this is contrasted against the opposing (evil) systems of ‘theocracy, slavery, patriarchy, colonialism, fascism, and other forms of discrimination’.
Read 30 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(