6/ Hmmm, think something didn't turn out as expected...
7/
8/
9/ Background reading: washingtonexaminer.com/news/identity-… I FOIAed Georgia Tech...you know, like what journalists are suppose to do. Key here appears that there were other legitimate contracts involving some of players too. I'm posting raw emails of interest for your researches as I dig
10/
11/ Ga Tech contract:
12/ Weird that the "from" line was entirely redacted here....Hmmm.
13/ LOL....but at least this guy is more reasonable than the press:
13/ LOL:
15/ And Republicans are the ones who are conspirator theorists.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREADETTE: If the government wanted to up the rates of COVID vaccination, they would do this: 1) Tell Americans that unfortunately the vaccinations do NOT protect against infection or being able to transmit COVID other than in X% (if that is accurate).
BUT 1/
2/ That people vaccinated are less likely to X, Y, Z, with transparent and accurate numbers. 3) That people with natural immunity are as protected if not more protected BUT not forever and provide best info.
4/ Explain that there are side effects and especially for some groups (women w/ J&J, teens-ish w/ others), and give accurate details of that AND risk they face versus risk of COVID. 5/ Note PCP should help individuals & parents make decision for those in categories at X/Y age.
@bradheath And Brad, this is why you're my favorite left-leaning reporter: because you at least try to be unbiased. Well, that and that you are never rude (and followers don't be rude to Brad!) and actually engage on the merits. I'll never convince you, but that's okay. 1/
@bradheath 2/ For instance, this exchange: I'm coming at it from the right and you from the left--you just don't see it.
@bradheath 3/ Or this exchange: (And again, I love that you will engage and if I'm wrong I admit it, such as when you called me on Abbott changing election laws).
THREAD: This thread is on an exchange I had with @bradheath this a.m. Brad & I have always had very respectful exchanges and while we both believe the other bias, we can still be gracious, so don't be an a$$ to him. Anyway, in response to my tweet below, Brad responded as: 1/
2/ This exchange is very significant because it illustrates a significant problem in the media. You either have @Acosta types who just write off perspectives as conspiracy, or you are more serious like Brad who think they know the answer, but don't. So I responded:
3/ Brad responded: But this is wrong. Even what he posted make that clear, so I corrected him.
THREADETTE: Because I am not afraid of the truth and want to ensure I did not make a mistake in my analysis of the data, I read the Post's "fact check" below. Several points. First, the Post completely ignored the MIT engineers amazing report on the analysis of signatures. 1/
2/ Second, as is often the case, the Post frames it as "fraud", and ignores illegal voting. Third, the author is ignorant on election law that doesn't require you to identity that the illegal votes went to Trump v. Biden: question is whether # of illegal votes = margin
3/ in many states. Fourth, the commercial database Post poo-poos is actually more reliable than merely change of address database and contrary to Post's claim, those figures have stood up in GA. thefederalist.com/2021/07/09/new…