1) Allison Neitzel served as physician-expert on misinformation stories at NBC, Mother Jones, MedPage Today, & others, but was forced to apologise last week for spreading misinformation and defaming physicians.
2) In one incident, @AliNeitzelMD attacked physician @TracyBethHoeg as "Hoeg hag."
HOEG: “The fact [Neitzel] has not nearly completed her training but has appointed herself as an expert physician in pointing out misinformation strikes me as both odd and ironic.”
3) Here's a posting of Allison Neitzel's "Sorry if you were hurt" apology, where she explained spreading misinformation about multiple physicians.
4) Neitzel claims to be a physician or is cited as a physician. But she doesn't meet the legal requirements for being a physician in Wisconsin.
Looked her up in the national registry of physicians and guess what? "Error: no matching records found."
5) But the "disinformation" genre of journalism is such a clown show that this didn't stop Neitzel from getting multiple media hits.
Disinformation reporters never do any due diligence; they just need a useful idiot "expert" to bash people.
6) @MotherJones Kiera Butler featured Allison Neitzel in a story attacking physicians opposed to a CA bill that would censor them, implying they were "far right" and promoting Nazi propaganda.
The bill was later repealed.
7) NBC's @BrandyZadrozny, who reports on "extremism" also platformed Neitzel. "Extremism" is code in the disinformation world for “conservative” as people like Zadrozny never seem to find extremism among liberals.
Here's Zadrozny.
8) The absurdity is Zadrozny quoted Neitzel as expert on misinformation and physician harssment, when Neitzel while Neitzel spent years fomenting misinformation and physician harassment.
I emailed Zadrozny if she would run a correction, but Zadrozny doesn't correct errors.
9) @medpagetoday ran Allison Neitzel in three stories.
“Can you explain why MedPage Today ran so many stories featuring Allison Neitzel who falsely claimed to be a physician and has been forced to post an apology for defaming physicians?”I emailed @jeremyfaust
10) The site @whowhatwhy has an author page for "physician-researcher" Allison Neitzel. (Will they award her a PhD?)
@RealRussBaker did not respond for comment to explain why. @markhertsgaard
11) @TracyBethHoeg "‘Misinformation’ reporters often seem less qualified in terms of understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific studies and domains than the people/scientists they are accusing of spreading ‘misinformation.’”
12) More at @DisInfoChron
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) EXCLUSIVE DOCUMENTS: Working w/ @mtaibbi we report on @CCDHate documents showing the Labour Party's political front's objective is "Kill Musk's Twitter" thru "Advertising focus" meaning harass his advertisers.
See internal documents provided by a whistleblower.
2) Internal Center for Countering Digital Hate document shows their annual objective is "Kill Musk's Twitter"
This is their internal monthly planner. Their goal is to also trigger regulatory action, although they are a tax-exempt nonprofit.
3) CCDH held a private conference w/ a slew of liberal groups organizing against Musk including Biden White House, Congressman Adam Schiff's office, Biden/Harris State Department officials, Canadian MP Peter Julian & Media Matters for America
1) Twitter Files: Democrats & media claimed Twitter 1.0 was a “private company” that made its own decisions, despite Biden Administration pressure to censor.
But new emails show Twitter hired a lobby shop staffed w/ Biden loyalists & then coordinated w/ Biden State Dept.
2) “This is John Hughes from Albright Stonebridge Group, the commercial diplomacy firm founded by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright,” wrote Twitter’s lobbyist to a senior official at State.
Twitter was seeking “advice” and help.
3) Politico reported around this same time that 10 of Biden’s top foreign policy crowd came from Albright Stonebridge.
2) Cochrane's Karla Soares-Weiser put out a statement attacking Cochrane's own mask review due to pressure from Zeynep Tufekci:
“Lisa, I have been back and forth with NYT about the mask review. CAN I GET YOUR VIEWS ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS?”
3) Several days later, Tufekci published a "masks work" essay in the NY Times and Karla Soares-Weiser rushed out a statement claiming problems with the mask review.
Soares-Weiser did this w/o consulting the scientists who wrote the mask review.
1) Going through hundreds of emails, it's clear @zeynep bullied Cochrane into publishing a statement against their own review and twisted the words of Cochrane editor Michael Brown.
2) After Cochrane published their 2023 mask review update, Bret Stephens wrote a NYT column ridiculing mask mandate activists--people like Zeynep Tufekci.
3 days later on Feb 24, Zeynep contacted Cochrane, but not the scientists. She went around them to the editors.
3) Zeynep introdued herself to Cochrane editor Michael Brown as an "academic" working on a review "in my own field."
Zeynep has published 0 in the academic literature this year, and one article in 2023--an opinion piece. As for that review, it has never appeared.