1. Why did Twitter censor Tucker Carlson? Better yet, who helped Twitter do that? #TuckerTwitterFiles
2. While reading an endless sea of #TwitterFiles, one request to censor alleged "Covid misinformation" stood out: Tucker Carlson.
Tucker is now in the news after Fox announced his departure.
3. A Twitter employee emailed colleagues in June 2021 to inquire if a Tucker Carlson op-ed for @FoxNewsOpinion should be flagged for COVID-19 "misinformation."
4. Twitter then punished Tucker Carlson for this op-ed.
Tucker actually cited the World Health Organisation's own website which stated that the WHO was NOT recommending children get the COVID vax.
5. When I looked back at the WHO website, I found they stealth edited their page to remove this passage stating they did not recommend kids get vaccinated.
6. After Twitter began reviewing Tucker's op-ed for alleged COVID-19 misinformation, an employee emailed that they would take action by "labelling any tweets linking the article." #TwitterFiles
7. Twitter officials also discussed looping in top Twitter execs, such as the general counsel, due to the "political risks" associated with such actions.
Yoel Roth agreed with this approach to "escalate."
8. One employee chimed in to explain various options Twitter could take that would affect the op-eds reach, without directly censoring Fox. There were various choices.
9. Tucker Carlson would have never known this happened, but when Twitter held a meet and greet months, later, they wrote of Tucker's producer, "[I]t was pretty apparent from the get-go we understood the very different goals we have at work."
10. BTW, the Twitter official who first brought Tucker's article to attention came to Twitter from the office of Senator Chuck Schumer, a frequent Tucker critic.
11. Much thanks to @TexasLindsay_ who helped collect and organise #TwitterFiles. I love San Francisco, but we read and read, until our eyes bled.
1) Trump administration has pivoted to investigate the much ballyhooed "Proximal Origin" paper by @scrippsresearch Kristian Andersen.
Read DOJ's letter to @NatureMedicine. Trump officials believe the paper was a quid pro quo for a Fauci grant. tinyurl.com/ykr7vxpv
2) Suspicions have long dogged this study, as emails have found the authors ran it past funders Tony Fauci and Francis Collins at the NIH, as well as @JeremyFarrar when he was at the Wellcome Trust.
In one email, Kristian Andersen praised them for "advice and leadership."
3) When Nature Medicine published the paper, editor in chief Joaa Monteiro claimed the paper “put conspiracy theories” about the pandemic’s possible lab origin to rest.
Is labelling an alternative hypothesis a "conspiracy theory" normal in science?
1) @ScienceMagazine interviewed @NIHDirector_Jay and then pretended he lied to them in the interview, kicking of a storm on #Bluesky.
I'm releasing the entire interview and a transcript.
The behavior is appalling, not the first time Science has been caught in unethical acts.
2) @AshleyRindsberg released a story for @tabletmag w/ emails catching @sciencemagazine Jon Cohen in salacious behavior. tinyurl.com/yrtjp5dw
3) In this case, Science Magazine claimed in two stories that Bhattacharya dismissed a Nature article "that NIH planned to suspend subawards for foreign collaborators"
1) Guest essay by NIH Infectious Disease Researcher names former boss Tony Fauci for misleading the nation; calls for end to dangerous gain-of-function virus studies that likely caused #COVID pandemic.
"For too many years, scientists have sold the public on a lie."
2) Fauci promoted paper by @scrippsresearch's Kristian Andersen to downplay lab accident. This paper was fake b/c it did not examine a common lab process called "serial passaging".
Fauci promoted this paper to the public, right under Trump's nose tinyurl.com/4wwbj69m
3) Andersend and authors of “Proximal Origin” paper ignored serial passaging, so they didn’t “disprove” a lab origin for COVID.
I have no idea how ignoring something so obvious could make it pass peer review and get published in a prestigious journal like @NatureMedicine.
1) Dr. Gretchen Lefever Watson & other scientists applaud @RobertKennedyJr for acting on the need to research links between antidepressants and teen violence.
Calls out @SenTinaSmith for spreading false information about these drug's benefits that aligns w/ industry marketing.
2) Lefever's research into the overprescription and harms of these drugs to teens was shut down by Big Pharma.
So why is @SenTinaSmith promoting Big Pharma propaganda? @GrageDustin @LauraDelano @DrJaclynnMoskow tinyurl.com/42fmn8pu
3) For almost two decades, researchers have called for further research into the links between violence and psychotropic drugs (antidepressants, stimulants, antipsychotics and mood stabilizers).