Thread by @gorskon

Lindsay quotes the dishonest antivaxxer @RobertKennedyJr, who lies and misrepresents what @peterhotez actually said. He said nothing about "snuffing out" antivaxxers (they are *not* "vaccine skeptics") nor did he say anything about making criticism of Anthony Fauci a felony. 1/

https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1468952363096367108

Contrary to what the clueless @ConceptualJames claims by citing the utterly dishonest antivaxxer@RobertKennedyJr, what @PeterHotez was referring to was not criticism of Fauci, but threats and violence against vaccine advocates. 2/ journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ar…

As for the bit about receiving grants from the @NIAIDNews, a branch of @NIH, it's very telling that @ConceptualJames thinks that these are conflicts of interest with respect to Dr. Fauci. Dr. Fauci, for instance, does not personally decide who gets grants. 3/

That's not how the NIH works. Grant applications are peer reviewed by study sections and given a priority score based on scientific merit. Available funding determines where the cutoff score for funding ends up, with the best-scoring grants under the payline being funded. 4/

In other words, @peterhotez is not going to increase his chances of being funded by NIAID by saying Fauci's critics should be jailed (which, contrary to RFK's lie, he did *not* say) or decrease his chances of funding by criticizing Fauci. Again, that's *not* how NIH works. 5/

It is possible that grifters like @RobertKennedyJr are merely ignorant about how the NIH funding system works and mistakenly project their worldview, in which money is doled out through favors and mutual backscratching, on the NIH. 6/

Alternatively, they might very well know better, having had NIH funding explained to them, and are simply lying, knowing that their audience doesn't know how NIH funding works and won't know that they are lying. Take your pick which is the case here. 7/

No doubt there will be responses that the NIH funding system is more complicated than that and that my description is simplistic. The limited exceptions don't change the conclusion that @RobertKennedy's either mistaken or dishonest description of it. Again, take your pick. 8/

Of course, @ConceptualJames should know that citing a longtime antivax leader like @RobertKennedyJr to attack @peterhotez iis not a good look. I've spent over 16 years documenting the disinformation, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and lies RFK Jr. has been spreading. 9/9

Of course, @ConceptualJames is a master of cringe-inducing takes on "Communism." 10/10

https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1469849066863484935?s=20

If you're citing a book that an antivax conspiracy mongering crank like @delbigtree loves, you're doing it wrong. 11/11

https://twitter.com/delbigtree/status/1468679066991706117?s=20