4 ms·
This reply seems like an attempt at "poisoning the well" [0]. > Personally I found the transcript painful to read, and basically gish gallop in podcast form.
by kkoncevicius 5y ago
This reply seems like an attempt at "poisoning the well" [0].
> Personally I found the transcript painful to read, and basically gish gallop in podcast form.
Malone has a h-index of 30. This doesn't mean everything he says is true. But you shouldn't expect someone to discard everything he says just because you found it "painful to read".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
- fer 5y agoYeah, I just shared my opinion, hence the "personally" to mark it as such, the transcript is there for anyone who wants to read it, and I encourage everyone to do it. But he might as well be poisoning his own well. His claim about strokes in children is false, as per linked. He quoted a paper that claimed vaccines were killing 2 for every 3 saved people, also false. Then his claims about ivermectin, false, and the paper he linked was retracted. Or that the vaccines could worsen COVID-19 infections, false. Or his claim about the vaccines causing permanent organ damage in children, again false. His claim about being IP blocked from the NEJM while crying censorship, was also false. His accusation against people of having links with Pfizer, false. Some of these points are gone with his Twitter account, but you'll find most others. And that's right off the top of my head. I think someone with a record of sharing non-factual, misrepresented, and cherry picked information on a particular subject shouldn't be considered a reliable source on that subject, but that's just me.