It's incredibly painful listening to people talking about 'toxicity on both sides of the debate' or 'scientific disagreements that are undermining pubic trust' when my experience on this platform is largely being bullied by, not 'disagreed' with on evidence by other scientists.🧵
Most people I challenge on the evidence don't respond to me on arguments I make at all. They attack me personally with sarcastic or snide remarks or subtweets - almost never clear and evidenced arguments. They never accept or acknowledge errors. This is not 'academic debate'.
This 'both siding' creates a sense of false equivalence between scientists who are being subjected to coordinated bullying just putting out well-evidenced information and those who are either putting out damaging misinformation in a pandemic, and/or bullying other scientists.
I find it interesting that calls for 'civility' often come from those who have bullied and trolled others, or in response to critiques of people (e.g. GBD proponents) who have put out dangerous misinformation that has informed policies costing tens of thousands of lives.
And no this isn't a 'disagreement' or 'different interpretation of evidence'. This is dangerous pseudoscience:
'naturally acquired herd immunity is desirable'
'masks don't work'
'mitigations not needed after vaccines'
'children aren't affected by COVID-19 & don't need protection'
So I do challenge colleagues on misinformation & misinterpretation or presentation of flawed evidence- I'm firm & unapologetic about it. But I'm direct- I don't make snide & sarcastic remarks. I don't lie, slander, or subtweet. So don't conflate me with my trolls. It's offensive.
And it's not helpful when you ask me to 'sort it out via DM' with people who are bullying and trolling me. They may be scientists and colleagues, but they are still bullying me, and asking me to 'sort things out' with people who are being abusive is unhelpful.
It doesn't recognise or validate my experience, which is unrelenting, and painful to the point of being traumatic. Would you ask someone who was being bullied or abused in another context to 'sort it out with their bully' or abuser? If not, why do you expect me to?
I'm tired of being tone-policed. If you don't like outspoken unapologetic direct women, I'd suggest you stop following me now. I'm not going to change my tone to make you or others feel comfortable, so if you're holding out hope for that, it's probably not worth your time or mine
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Study published in Science on 500K parents where mitigation measures, most of which were *inside* classrooms correlated with risk of infection in their parents. So transmission in classrooms not only leads to infected kids, but infected parents. science.org/doi/full/10.11…
CDC study on masks and ventilation *inside* classrooms reducing transmission: cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/7…
But don't even believe these. How about genome sequencing? Where the same virus is found in a cluster in school among people who never came into contact outside school? Hard to explain that through transmission outside, isn't it?
It's 'inevitable' we'll import new variants,
It's 'inevitable' many more people will lose loved ones
It's 'inevitable' children will get infected
It's NOT inevitable.
It's only inevitable if you don't even bother putting in the most basic public health measures in a pandemic.
How on earth can they stand up and say it's inevitable, when so many countries have managed to protect their public from all of this. And their children. After 18 months we have almost no mitigations in schools. We're keeping infected children in classrooms fuelling spread.
And we could've at the very very least offered vaccines to adolescents when they became available. Did we?
No, we didn't- we decided to do this after almost every other country in Europe, and much of the rest of the world.
Very glad to see @bmj_latest correct their previous piece to highlight the problems with the Hoeg preprint on vaccine myocarditis. The methods of the study- using vaccine adverse event reporting data in the way they have make the results invalid.
All global data suggest vaccine associated myocarditis is a rare and typically mild side effect of vaccines in adolescents, and benefits from vaccines *far* outweigh risks even at much lower incidence rates than we have currently in the UK.
Lot's of data now to suggest myocarditis is strongly associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and recent work also suggesting COVID-19 related myocarditis is far more common than vaccine associated myocarditis (in 16+ adults at least).
No, it doesn't say that- it says VAERS data isn't meant to be used this way, and this msg is being co-opted by anti-vaxx groups. Which it is - and has done *huge* damage. Many have gone through the reports in detail & pointed out issues. Can the authors correct what they said?
Given the *huge* influence the platforming of this problematic study on media has had - putting out messaging that is incorrect, and encouraging vaccine hesitancy, I think the authors have a responsibility to correct this.
There are detailed rebuttals: sciencebasedmedicine.org/dumpster-divin…
The authors need to read and respond to this. It's unacceptable to put out a study based on cases that clearly weren't vaccine associated myocarditis and make claims about risks.
Miriam Cates, at today's Westminster Hall debate on vaccinating children 'paying tribute to UsForThem', a lobby group that's has consistently spread misinformation & lobbied against mitigations in schools and vaccinations for kids. How much influence does this grp have on govt?🧵
This should worry us all. #HARTlogs reveal UFT looking for 'expert witnesses' to pressure the MHRA to not approve vaccines for kids. One of their signatories has discussed 'seeding the idea that vaccines cause COVID-19'. This is dangerous. Yet, this group has been quoted by MPs.
This group sent a pre-action letter to Gavin Williamson last year, pressuring DfE to open schools without mitigations in Sept, despite SAGE warning government about the devastating impacts of this on the pandemic. We all know what happened after.
Important point here- given JCVI has said the benefits of vaccinating 'healthy' adolescents was 'marginal'. We've had ~9000 hospitalisations with COVID-19 in children so far. These docs show 80% of hosp were directly *due to* COVID-19 with the *majority* in 'healthy' children.
There have been 3,400 COVID-19 hospitalisations in under 18s since 4th June, when MHRA authorised Pfizer for adolescents- 1700 of these have been in 6-17 yr olds. Based on recent docs, the majority of these would've been in 'healthy children'.
Of course we didn't even offer vaccines to children with 'pre-existing conditions, who JCVI say have 50x the risk of ICU admission until 19th July, *6 weeks later*. How many were preventable had we started vaccinating all kids earlier? And who is accountable for these delays?