3 ms·
This article was retracted (referenced in another thread), but it was essentially a summary of the source webinar that is still posted (but oddly unlisted) here
by https443 6y ago
This article was retracted (referenced in another thread), but it was essentially a summary of the source webinar that is still posted (but oddly unlisted) here: https://youtu.be/3TKJN61aflI https://youtu.be/3TKJN61aflI
I encourage you to watch that video and judge the analysis yourself. In this video I feel like she is very balanced and is taking a scientific approach ("Here's how I did the analysis and here's what I'm saying - please let me know what you think") vs the media/twitter trying to summarize/polarize.
- user-the-name 6y agoYet it is still incredibly misleading and dishonest. That should really teach you something about relying on the style of presentation for judging whether a claim is reasonable. In this case, it's garbage.
- https443 6y agoI think you're being over sensationalist. In today's world I think it's healthy to assume someone is trying to reach for the truth instead of assuming malice. She's trying to present her findings and asking for feedback. I don't think that should be demonized - we've all been wrong before. Please watch the video.
- user-the-name 6y agoWhy is the video still up, even after being shown to be wrong? This is a subject where incorrect information is actually endangering lives. Why keep this up, when it is known to be wrong? That, to me, implies malice. I do not see any other way to interpret that.