Post

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
Click again on or Share Via icon
Click on Copy Link to Tweet
Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
More info at Twitter Help

Phil Magness

@PhilWMagness

Dec 18, 2021 • 8 tweets • 3 min read • Read on X

Scrolly

https://twitter.com/PhilWMagness/status/1472240299325988865

Time for some more documents from the Fauci/Collins email dump, picking up where we left off on 10/16/2020...

https://twitter.com/PhilWMagness/status/1472240299325988865

Up next we have the Washington Post, which sent Fauci's underlings a request for comment on the Great Barrington Declaration.

The message didn't make it to Fauci in time for the story though, which ran on the 16th. By the time his chief of staff got it on the 18th it was already out.

Keep in mind that Fauci was away for an unspecified reason on 10/16 that was redacted from the emails.

Fauci reemerges on the 18th though to request intel on the task force meeting he missed from Collins.

Collins replies that the GBD did not come up, and Atlas was away too. This prompts Fauci to relay Birx's disdain for Atlas.

Collins chimes in again on 10/20, not so much on the GBD itself but to relay gossip about Sunetra Gupta's ex-husband.

There's another gap in the email chain after 10/20, but in the meantime Fauci appears to have tasked his chief of staff Greg Folkers with assembling a list of talking points against the Great Barrington Declaration.

Folkers replies on 11/2/20 with the list for the task "as discussed."

But it is not a list of scientific papers to counter the GBD group's arguments. Instead, it is a list of even more political op-eds attacking the GBD.

Which op-eds did Fauci use to make his case? I have the answer and will reveal in the coming days.

But most are not even from credentialed scientists, and the few that are come from ideological lockdowners who all happened to agree w Fauci before the GBD.

Stay tuned for more!

• • •

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

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @PhilWMagness

Phil Magness

@PhilWMagness

Nov 18, 2024

This exact same pattern may be found for almost every trendy jargon term from academia.

It starts as an obscure proprietary concept on the Marxist far-left fringes of the professoriate. Then from about 2015 onward, it's everywhere.

Two simultaneous trends explain why:

1. Starting around 2000, the academy shifted hard-left. With this shift, low-rigor ideological dreck from the Critical Theory fringe became the dominant perspective.

2. Journalism followed academia in adopting & promoting the same concepts.

Related example: the sudden "discovery" of misinformation/disinformation around 2016.

Both terms existed before then, but the academic left and elite journalism settled on them as a tactic to describe and discredit any/all dissenting arguments..

Read 16 tweets

Phil Magness

@PhilWMagness

Sep 3, 2024

Academic leftists: "The reason academia skews left is because we do better research & reality has a left wing bias!"

Also academic leftists: "Here's my CV. I mainly do postcolonial ethnographies of how neoliberal capitalism oppresses indigenous Marxist sex workers in Greenland."

Academic leftists: "Our department won't hire anyone on the right because their research isn't good enough, according to us."

Also academic leftists: "Here's my CV. I mainly write Marxist cat poetry using a critical theory lens. Sometimes my cat is credited as the coauthor."

Academic leftists: "Our department only has leftist students because applicants on the right aren't good enough."

Also academic leftists: "Here's our admissions app. You will be evaluated mainly on whether your DEI statement agrees with intersectional critical theory."

Read 7 tweets

Phil Magness

@PhilWMagness

May 4, 2024

🧵Thread on @gabriel_zucman's claim that billionaires pay a lower tax rate than the average American, as published in yesterday's @nytimes.

The short version: Zucman manipulates his data to fit a pro-tax political narrative. You can see this by comparing to his own earlier work.

In 2018 Zucman (along with Piketty and Saez) published an article in the prestigious Quarterly Journal of Economics, estimating the avg effective tax rate on top income groups. They argued that the gap between top and bottom earner tax rates had closed due to payroll taxes.

But they also noticed something interesting when you look at the average effective tax rate paid by the wealthiest 1% of earners. It had only slightly decreased between the 1960s and the present!

Read 26 tweets

Phil Magness

@PhilWMagness

May 3, 2024

The NY Times article about billionaire tax rates is engaging in intentional deception.

Graph below shows his original published statistics in blue vs. what he told the NYT in orange. The change came from manipulating how he assigned corp tax incidence.

nytimes.com/interactive/20…

Its author Gabriel Zucman is also engaging in another deception by reclassifying unrealized capital gains as "income."

The problem: that's not what the tax code or the constitution say.

Income is governed by the realization principle, meaning it must be earned to be taxed.

This isn't the first time Zucman has used this same sleight of hand.

5 years ago he got the WaPo to run the billionaire tax rates chart. He contradicted his own published data, and even briefly deleted his data files from his website to hide that fact. I called him out then.

Read 5 tweets

Phil Magness

@PhilWMagness

Apr 15, 2024

This is false.

Zucman's own statistics (before he manipulated them for the New York Times by altering tax incidence to support his narrative) show the top 1%'s average tax rate has barely changed since 1962. #communitynotes

Here are Zucman's own stats before he manipulated them to fit his story.

1962 tax rate was 39%. 2014 was 36%.

(Note: I omitted PSZ's pre-1960s data because it is basically junk, extrapolated from poorly-rendered income distribution estimates by Piketty and Saez. These data are riddled with accounting errors that render them basically useless)

Read 8 tweets

Phil Magness

@PhilWMagness

Mar 23, 2024

Top 10% income share in the US using different approaches and sources. As usual, the Piketty-Saez (blue) is the outlier and presents an exaggerated depiction of rising inequality. 1/

Note that there are differences in the series & sources.

Piketty-Saez and Geloso-Magness are from IRS tax data. Geloso-Magness is generally lower because it corrects for accounting and data entry errors in Piketty-Saez, reducing overall inequality. 2/

Auten-Splinter is a more comprehensive measure that includes both income earnings (e.g. IRS) and imputed income from national accounts for non-tax sources.

The Social Security figure is a combo of 2 series using similar methods (Kopczuk-Song through 2007 and EPI's extension) 3/

Read 8 tweets

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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Phil Magness

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @PhilWMagness

Phil Magness

Phil Magness

Phil Magness

Phil Magness

Phil Magness

Phil Magness

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!