So, this is probably the worst rebuttal I've seen recently, and this says a lot. I suspect I'm going to have a few things to say so it's time to reach for that 🧵emoji.
So, first strike for a Professor of Ethics, he doesn't link to the video he is responding to. The tweet he quotes doesn't link to it, and the article the tweet links to doesn't link to the video. It's all meta-commentary. So here's the original:
Second strike for a Professor of Ethics, he mentions that he "led WHO's policy brief on the ethics of vaccine mandates". Professor, that's what's called a "conflict of interest". You're supposed to acknowledge it makes your position a little tenuous, not use it as an argument.
Third, and final, strike for a Professor of Ethics: He misquotes his subject, completely twisting her meaning:

Dr. Julie Ponesse says: "My school employs me to be an authority on Ethics" (0:42). A perfectly reasonable sentence.
What does Professor Smith construe that statement to mean? That she calls herself an authority on Ethics. I kid you not, read for yourself:
That's it. That's literally all he has. All the tweets in the sequence keep on bitching about how she calls herself an authority. (kinda like he did in the first tweet when he name-dropped the WHO).
But somehow, it gets better. For his fourth(!) strike, he manages to refute himself in a single tweet. He starts out saying authority should not matter, then ends up faulting her for citing reasons in fields she has no expertise in. Which is it?
What Dr. Ponesse is saying is: a vaccine, especially one not yet approved (as it wasn't at the time in Canada), requires informed consent. This includes absence of coercion. It's routed in Autonomy, the first of the 4 basic principles of Medical Ethics. web.stanford.edu/class/siw198q/…
And so the last strike, his fifth, somehow, I will award Professor Smith is that he failed to steelman his interlocutor. The core of her argument was simple. He chose to twist an unrelated detail, and make a big deal of it, including an ass of himself, and call it a response.
But wait, there's more: in the comments, after this shameful attempt at vilification, he pretends he's all about unity. Though he also says it won't make a difference. I can see why the WHO took a liking to this guy. Strike number ♾️.
Thanks for the ping @Dash_Memes! I hadn't actually read your commentary before clicking through, but suffice to say we ended up in the same place:

• • •

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

Keep Current with Alexandros Marinos

Alexandros Marinos 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 @alexandrosM

18 Sep
I am reading the slide deck of the TOGETHER trial and have a few questions of those who know a bit more about this stuff than me.

I'll try to keep this thread as neutral as possible.

To read the deck, click the link below, and press the "slides" button. rethinkingclinicaltrials.org/news/august-6-…
The trial says (implies) that it's using "shared control patients". In the "recruitment over time" slide, it shows that the placebo group was recruited in both "stages". Does this mean placebo patients from either stage were used to form control groups for each drug tested?
It also says (last bullet) that this is a "planned interim analysis of the fluvoxamine arm with the data cut from August 2nd, 2021". Does this mean the trial isn't done? What's the rationale for sharing data on other drugs if this was supposed to be about fluvoxamine?
Read 7 tweets
18 Sep
Upon request of @april_harding I will attempt to list some off-the-cuff principles for how my 🧵s come together.

I'm sure others do it differently, this is about how I do it.

That's right. It's a 🧵 about 🧵s.
1. Understanding the medium is important. A thread is not a blogpost. As much as possible make each tweet stand out as a stand-alone idea. The best part about threads is that each tweet can reach different people and generate different conversations.
2. The characters are limited, but you have attachments, QTs, links, etc. Try as much as possible to cite your sources and give people a path to learn more about each of your claims.
Read 13 tweets
18 Sep
A partially effective measure will not only select for the subset of the problem it doesn't address, but the very existence of the measure can worsen the problem by creating the impression it's under control, encouraging people to let their guard down.

What are some examples?
1. ADE:
A partially effective vaccine will not only select for the subset of the variants it doesn't kill, but the very presence of antibodies can worsen the infection by giving the virus the body's own signature, encouraging cells to let their guard down.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-…
2.
Journalistic best practices not only select for the subset of disinformation they don't address, but their very existence can worsen the problem by creating the impression journalistic outlets have disinformation under control, encouraging people to let their guard down.
Read 13 tweets
18 Sep
Today's experiment in #tweetInversion...

- do you think this one works?
- if so, why do you think it works?

I'm still on the fence about whether this is.a tool of sensemaking or sophistry.
I think I know why I was uncomfortable about this one. Her tweet is built on a false fact claim. The evidence is not being hidden, it's right there. So in this case inversion is not making a symmetric tweet. The response is genuinely superior, since it's actually true. Huh.
... And I think this may be the first #tweetInversion that will exceed the original in likes, and it's going to do it in less than an hour. This is somewhat confirmatory of my suspicion above.
Read 5 tweets
17 Sep
I've started trying something that may look irritating, but is testing a hypothesis. Namely:

If a tweet, with minimal modifications, can become a perfectly coherent reply to itself, then the original is vacuous meta-commentary that can be discarded without further consideration.
I've been noticing quite a few of these on-high "pretending to be wise" kind of quips that sound wise until one realizes that they are entirely free-floating and cannot be distinguished from their negatives, which also sound just as wise.
It's perfectly possible that I myself have written stuff like this in the past, though I usually try to write with reference to facts, such that a simple reversal wouldn't work. I'll continue to investigate and refine the hypothesis.
Read 8 tweets
16 Sep
Today's donation to the FLCCC is in the honor of "Will". This one is a fascinating troll though, so first, a little 🧵
So, our friend "will", is one of the most stubborn, dishonest arguers around. Peruse his tweets if you like: @su3su2u1. If you hear him tell it, he's here to find arguments to convince his family to get vaccinated. Image
What really attracted my attention though, is that he didn't seem to want my help in that regard. Very, very strange. Image
Read 17 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!

:(