5 ms·
How much of that was people passing those things off as fact, when there wasn't the evidence to back them up? The problem is, everyone thinks they've become an
by philjohn 5y ago
How much of that was people passing those things off as fact, when there wasn't the evidence to back them up? The problem is, everyone thinks they've become an epidemiologist and virologist over the last 18 months, people jump onto pre-prints that haven't been peer reviewed to push whatever narrative they want - some of the trials that claimed to show Ivermectin as a wonder drug were plagued with badly designed trial protocols, and flat out suspected fraud.
Claiming that it was definitely a lab leak because of furin clevage - saying it with certainty, is most definitely misinformation, the truth is we don't know (and may never). If people say "it could have been a lab leak" (and many people did, without being "censored") that's different.
- pessimizer 5y ago> How much of that was people passing those things off as fact, when there wasn't the evidence to back them up? The censors haven't held themselves to the same standards when identifying "misinformation," and they certainly jumped on studies that were terrible, such as the fraudulent hydroxychloroquine Lancet study. > If people say "it could have been a lab leak" (and many people did, without being "censored") And many people did with being censored (with or without scare quotes.)
- philjohn 5y agoDo you have examples you can share of people censored for raising the question, not declaring as a definitive fact?
- F6F6FA 5y ago[flagged]