4 ms·
You could have read the paper yourself 10 days ago to find the flaws. You could have read the public discussions where scientists questioned the paper. You coul
by knzhou 6y ago
You could have read the paper yourself 10 days ago to find the flaws. You could have read the public discussions where scientists questioned the paper. You could have read the published "Expression of Concern" in the Lancet yesterday. You can read the retraction notice today. What exactly are you missing?
- koolba 6y ago> What exactly are you missing? Why should I be limited to the source material? Why can’t I watch a video of someone discussing the topic and providing their own analysis?
- knzhou 6y agoOf course you can. For example, Dr. John Campbell has a popular Youtube channel where he dissects new studies. And if you just want an opposing political spin, you know Fox News and co. have Youtube channels, right? What gets taken down is spittle-flecked rants about how COVID-19 was created by Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci to bring about the Biblical apocalypse, but can be cured by drinking bleach, but simultaneously it doesn't even exist.
- koolba 6y agoAt the end of the day it boils down to whether you think you get to decide what others get to watch and hear. The content itself isn’t relevant because once you go down that road, then it’s just a matter of squeezing or shifting the acceptable window.
- pnako 6y agoOr you could have watched a Youtube video. In fact I heard about that flawed paper from a Youtube video.