This is one of the problems with Heather, Bret, & Eric. They are utterly disdainful of any ‘mainstream’ sources until they find a single instance that agrees with them (or appears to) then they tout the existence of the article as offering complete vindication of their position.
https://twitter.com/HeatherEHeying/status/1421152335540064258
It’s a clear illustration of motivated reasoning and how their standards for assessing evidence are so lacking. Heather is misinterpreting the study but even if she wasn’t finding a study that makes an argument that supports a view you hold *is not a vindication of your view*.
This is a mistake Heather, Bret, and Eric repeatedly make. They think if a position they hold is represented in an actual academic article or mainstream media coverage that shows it has merit. It does not. It simply shows someone else had a similar view as you & got published.
There are many studies, investigations, and articles published that are of low quality. And there are also articles/studies that are good quality overall but include speculative claims or unwarranted claims & conclusions.
Heather is misinterpreting this study, perhaps due to relying on the poorly worded headline from CNN rather than focusing on the contents of the study. She thinks it vindicates what her, Bret, and their assorted fringe guests have claimed about vaccines generating dangerous…
…selection pressures that drive variants. But it doesn’t. First, it’s just a modelling study. That doesn’t make it invalid but it does make it inherently limited in how much evidence it can offer. Second, while it is focusing on identifying potential conditions under which…
…vaccine resistant strains are more likely to emerge, it is not comparing this against the level of overall variation in strains that would arise with low vaccination rates and a reliance on ‘natural immunity’. This is the scenario the DarkHorse gang are typically pushing for.
The recommendation of the paper also stands in contrast with Heather, Bret, & guest’s various arguments for how ridiculous it is to continue stifling public safety measures when you have high levels of vaccination/infection especially among vulnerable populations. 
The paper remains a single paper and it’s findings should be interpreted accordingly. But sadly entirely in keeping with what the Weinsteins & Heying usually do, it’s actual recommendations are not focused on, just it’s disingenuous rhetorical value for their narrative. 😩
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
