Paul D. Thacker Profile picture
Apr 3 12 tweets 4 min read Read on X
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.

Also, she's not a physician!
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.” Image
3) Here's a posting of Allison Neitzel's "Sorry if you were hurt" apology, where she explained spreading misinformation about multiple physicians. Image
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." Image
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The bill was later repealed. Image
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. Image
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. Image
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 Image
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 Image
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 Image

• • •

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

Keep Current with Paul D. Thacker

Paul D. Thacker 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!


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 @thackerpd

Mar 7
1) A US Attorney's Office and the FBI are now monitoring public universities' release of #FOIA documents on sensitive science. What is going on?

The documents involve "disinformation researcher" Kate Starbird of UW & virologist Ralph Baric of UNC.
2) The Justice Department's involvement became public though a state FOI.

An AUSA emailed Kate Starbird about reviewing release of public documents. Starbird is a "disinformation researcher" at UW.
3) “[W]e would ask to have an extension of time before the records are produced so that we can have time to review them and assess whether we’ll have to file suit to protect them from disclosure.”
cc: @davelevinthal
@gregorykorte Image
Read 6 tweets
Mar 1
1) On January 31, 2020, Jon Cohen wrote for Science Magazine that “most researchers say” the virus could not have come from a lab.

The very next day, researchers Cohen quoted emailed concerns that the virus was actually engineered.

Let's see emails!!
2) Cohen's awkward “most researchers say” article is classic science writing. What science writers label “reporting’ is just calling up the known experts and then quoting them as experts.

Science writers report for, not on science. #sciomm
3) Day after Cohen's "most researchers say" article appeared, Kristian Andersen sent this email to Anthony Fauci.

“[S]ome of the features (potentially) look engineered .... Eddie Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. Image
Read 8 tweets
Feb 28
1) Four years ago this week, published Taylor & Francis published a commentary claiming it was a “conspiracy theory” to speculate if COVID started in a Wuhan lab.

Emails show ghostwriting and the authors worried about a lab accident.
2) The purported authors of the commentary are:
Shan-Lu Liu, Ohio State University
Linda J. Saif, Ohio State University
Susan R. Weiss, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
Lishan Su, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Image
3) But ghostwriters included Ralph Baric at UNC and Shi Zhengli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

How do we know? LET'S SEE THOSE EMAILS!!!!
Read 11 tweets
Feb 20
1) Florida has a Grand Jury looking into the pandemic response, interviewing and assessing evidence, and hearing from scientists.

They released initial findings. Guess what?

Not much evidence for "masks work" propaganda you've been hearing from "follow the science" experts. Image
2) Some KEY POINTS: The CDC has not put out quality science on masks through their journal Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).
3) ANOTHER KEY FINDING: False assurances that “masks work” may have harmed high-risk individuals who were misled into believing masks offer more protection than they do. Image
Read 6 tweets
Feb 15
1) German newspaper reports @MichaelWorobey study in Science is "blatant nonsense" and accuses @ScienceMagazine of "careless and unprofessional handling of statistical methodology.”

Worobey study argued pandemic started in a wet market.

2) The reporters forced Science Magazine to make a minor correction to the Worobey paper. Image
3) I have gotten a translation of the article, which really paints a bad portrait of Science Magazine's peer review process, which seems focused on supporting the zoonosis claim.

This is politics, not science.

Statistics gives your correlation, not causation. Duh! Image
Read 4 tweets
Feb 12
1) Why are German but NOT American science writers covering the study finding Science Magazine’s paper advocating market Origin for COVID was has "invalid" & "flawed" statistics?

cc: @NateSilver538 @mattwridley @R_H_Ebright
2) The paper finds @MichaelWorobey paper "statistical arguments are unconvincing and do not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that the market was the early epicenter.” Image
3) Here's the abstract.

BTW, this is not the 1st paper calling into question this wanky paper by Worobey. Image
Read 7 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!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!