Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Phil Magness Profile picture
@PhilWMagness
Jan 10, 2022 • 8 tweets • 9 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
It appears that the "Science Based Medicine" editor David Gorski got @GeneticLiteracy to de-publish a year old editorial because it criticized his conspiratorial ravings against the Great Barrington Declaration.

It used to be here, but no more:

geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/11/16/vie… Image
@GeneticLiteracy Since the internet never forgets, an archived copy may still be found here.

web.archive.org/web/2020112817…
@GeneticLiteracy When he discovered the piece some six months after its publication, @gorskon was furious and tweeted up a storm about how he was going to be "brutal" in his response, and how he was going to go after the GLP. ImageImage
@GeneticLiteracy @gorskon After "stewing on" how he would respond, Gorski lashed out and called on GLP's editor @JonEntine to remove the piece.

Based on the link above, it appears that Entine obliged him. Image
@GeneticLiteracy @gorskon @JonEntine Gorski's behavior in actively campaigning to censor any and all criticism of him recently obtained a new sense of irony because his own blog, @ScienceBasedMed, has been running a series of blog posts adamantly denying the censorship of the GBD.

sciencebasedmedicine.org/muzzled/
@GeneticLiteracy @gorskon @JonEntine @ScienceBasedMed Tagging @zaruk, whose article was censored by Gorski's complaints.
@GeneticLiteracy @gorskon @JonEntine @ScienceBasedMed @zaruk Further irony: the dead link on the GLP page now redirects to a different op-ed by the GBD authors. Image
@GeneticLiteracy @gorskon @JonEntine @ScienceBasedMed @zaruk Per the Wayback Machine, Zaruk's article appears to have been removed from GLP website on April 2, 2021 - the same day that Gorski targeted it. ImageImage

• • •

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

Keep Current with Phil Magness

Phil Magness 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 @PhilWMagness

Phil Magness Profile picture
Jun 18
Far-left historians today often exaggerate the importance of slavery to capitalism by tracing cotton's derivative products globally.

That said, there is one 19th century figure who directly benefitted from slave-produced cotton: Karl Marx.

For most of his adult life, Marx relied on handouts from his friend Friedrich Engels for his main source of income. From the 1840s-1869 Marx send Engels a non-stop stream of requests for money, which Engels usually obliged. After 1869, Engels sold his business partnership and began giving Marx a regular yearly allowance from the proceeds that more or less lasted until his death in 1883.

Engels's business, in turn, was a large textile mill in Manchester operated by his father's firm Ermen and Engels. And what did that mill make? Yarns and fabrics out of slave-produced cotton, which it sourced from the American south.

We know this because, in 1862, Engels wrote a letter to Marx about the American Civil War in which he reported that cotton from the south had dried up because of the blockade. Other business records indicate that Ermen and Engels got their cotton from shipments through Liverpool, which in the 1840s-1861 meant southern plantation cotton imports from the United States. Indeed, southern cotton would have been the raw material that sustained the majority of Engels' working career since he retired only 4 years after the end of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery in the United States. His firm likely also got cotton from other sources such as Egypt during the Civil War, but for most of his multi-decade career there, the cotton would have been slave-produced.

That means Engels very much made his family fortune as a derivative beneficiary of American slavery. And he used that slave-derived fortune to directly subsidize Karl Marx ;-)Image
Marx also knew where his patron's money was ultimately coming from, because Engels would write him detailed letters about the cotton markets in America - letters that were informed by his own business stake as a cotton textile mill manager. Image
We also know that Engels himself had no problem with his slave-produced inputs. In 1852 he wrote Marx, reporting that he had just pitched his father on relocating to Liverpool...

...where he would serve as the cotton procurement agent for the factory. Image
Read 6 tweets
Phil Magness Profile picture
Jun 7
I pick on Slobodian in the thread below as an egregious and recurring offender. But this sort of quote-editing by leftist scholars is *extremely* common in academia.

Here's another by Nancy MacLean & Sandy Darity where they transform an attack on Apartheid into a defense of it. Image
MacLean et all published the manipulated quote above (along with several other similar manipulations) in an article for the Australian journal "History of Economics Review" in 2023. Image
In 2023 trio of us wrote a response comment calling attention to MacLean et al's blatant misrepresentations & sent it to the journal as a request for correction.

We encountered the same pattern of a politically partisan editor running interference to protect MacLean.
Read 10 tweets
Phil Magness Profile picture
Jun 7
If a historian on the right abused evidence in this way, they'd face career ruination.

When Boston University's Quinn Slobodian does it, he gets a Guggenheim fellowship, book awards, and a Hewlett Foundation grant.

Academia's rot runs far deeper than a simple crisis of rigor. Image
Slobodian does this sort of thing frequently in his published works - almost always to make the person he is misquoting appear to be sympathetic to racism. Image
Here's another where he excerpts out the very next sentence in the passage...because it completely contradicts his own claim. Image
Read 14 tweets
Phil Magness Profile picture
May 28
🧵We all saw Gabriel Zucman's NYT op-ed justifying the California wealth tax proposal, along with ostentatious claims that billionaires pay lower tax rates than average Americans. Let's dig into the methodology... Image
Zucman & his coauthor Emmanuel Saez have been making this claim in various forms for years and presenting it as "fact," even though they have struggled to gain scholarly acceptance of their approach. Instead, they do "peer review" by sending their stuff to the NYT editorial page
I first caught this pair in 2019 when the rolled out "new" stats claiming that the ultra-wealthy only paid an overall tax rate (federal/state/local) of a little over 20%.

In reality, the wealthiest Americans pay about 41% - a fact admitted in Zucman's own stats from 2018. Image
Read 17 tweets
Phil Magness Profile picture
May 21
In 2018 Zucman published a paper in a top econ journal that inadvertently revealed the total federal/state/local tax rate of the top 0.001% was ~40%.

A year later, he realized this undermined his wealth tax. So he fudged the stats to fit his politics.

Image
Details and receipts here, including how I caught Zucman initially trying to hide the old stats off his website.

philmagness.com/2019/10/someth…
And here is a longer academic journal article I wrote about this episode, including digging into what Zucman altered to put his thumb on the statistical scale. independent.org/wp-content/upl…
Read 5 tweets
Phil Magness Profile picture
May 12
🧵The Trump admin's defense of Section 122 tariffs has a huge legal obstacle that almost nobody has noticed thus far.

It comes from an obscure provision of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I'll explain below.
Let's start with Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This is the provision that Trump used to reinstate a 10% across the board tariff after SCOTUS struck down his IEEPA tariffs in February.

The US Court of International Trade ruled against Trump on Thursday. He has appealed.
At issue with Section 122 is the meaning of "Balance of Payments deficits," which must exist before the president can impose tariffs through this law.

Historically, a BoP deficit meant a drawdown on the country's official monetary reserves under the Bretton Woods exchange system
Read 12 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

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!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(