> A lot of it is just straight-up fraud. Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz has documented this in some detail. Alexandros Marinos provides a counterpoint [1] > Reading t

> A lot of it is just straight-up fraud. Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz has documented this in some detail. Alexandros Marinos provides a counterpoint [1] > Reading the article, I was surprised (but not really) by the central role Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz (henceforth GidMK as is his much shorter Twitter handle) had played in the analysis. The man has a way to apparate wherever a person of influence takes a position on ivermectin. This is at least the third time I’ve observed the same sequence of events. > ... > I wanted to avoid focusing on GidMK himself, but the way the analysis comes out, this won’t be possible. I’ll try to keep things as dispassionate as possible without being fake, but I beseech the reader to understand that this isn’t your standard “Ad Hominem” argument. If Scott’s analysis depends on his trust on GidMK, it is paramount that I demonstrate that GidMK’s track record is not one deserving of that trust. > ... > I have to also note that GidMK is highly conscious of his feed, and is probably applying some automated means of blocking anyone supporting opposing views to his. Not only has he blocked me on Twitter, he seems to have blocked a double-digit percentage of my followers, many of which were not aware of the block until I asked them to check. My best hypothesis is that anyone “liking” anything I posted opposing his positions would automatically get blocked. There is more I could excerpt, but probably better to read the whole thing. 1. https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/p/a-conflict-of-blurred-visions https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/p/a-conflict-of-blurr...