4 ms·

Do you have a link to Bhattacharya "pushing ivermectin"? And what specific statements about vaccine effectiveness did he make which are misleading? Masks are h

Do you have a link to Bhattacharya "pushing ivermectin"? And what specific statements about vaccine effectiveness did he make which are misleading? Masks are harmful, so that one isn't really misinformation. I mean, if he was saying the higher CO2 is bad for you or something that would be pretty dubious, but the idea that there are absolutely zero downsides to extended public masking is risible.

autoexec 3y ago
> Do you have a link to Bhattacharya "pushing ivermectin"? Not finding one directly, but he was part of the senate hearings that covered it and part of the lawsuit against the government for trying to get social media companies to remove misinformation. > Among those allies is Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee and who on Tuesday held a hearing devoted to promoting discredited coronavirus treatments and maligning public safety measures. There had been an outcry ahead of the hearing because one of the witnesses scheduled was Dr. Jane Orient, an outspoken critic of vaccines. Another witness was Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya of Stanford, a co-author of a petition against lockdowns called the Great Barrington Declaration. (https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-vaccine-rollout-marred-by-confusion-false-claims-233349756.html https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-vaccine-rollout-marred-by...) https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/missouri-v-biden-ruling.pdf https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/missou... > Masks are harmful, so that one isn't really misinformation. Masks aren't harmful, as evidenced by the countless people who wear them all the time either professionally or just to avoid spreading/catching illness.
- nostrebored 3y ago
  > "I haven't found one directly, but here's this other thing" This misrepresentation and miscategorization of people with legitimate complaints about public health policy is the entire problem with discourse here. The petition against lockdowns made perfect sense at the time and still does today. Countries like Sweden have not seen the long term outcomes models predicted, and these models were used to inform public health policy, despite our knowledge _at the time_ that they were poorly made, in many cases unreproducible, and a poor proxy for empirical evidence. This empirical evidence had led to the CDC guidelines we had for outbreaks that we threw out of the window at the beginning of the pandemic. There is very little decent science around masks. Masks have not been shown to avoid spreading or catching illnesses, even in those professional settings that you mention. For example, take this analysis of 3 RCTs that does not find substantial evidence to support the benefit of even N95 masks in clinical settings: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M23-0570 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M23-0570 What was produced at the beginning of the pandemic was a doctrine. It was, and still is, not absurd to question that doctrine.

autoexec 3y ago

> Do you have a link to Bhattacharya "pushing ivermectin"? Not finding one directly, but he was part of the senate hearings that covered it and part of the lawsuit against the government for trying to get social media companies to remove misinformation. > Among those allies is Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee and who on Tuesday held a hearing devoted to promoting discredited coronavirus treatments and maligning public safety measures. There had been an outcry ahead of the hearing because one of the witnesses scheduled was Dr. Jane Orient, an outspoken critic of vaccines. Another witness was Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya of Stanford, a co-author of a petition against lockdowns called the Great Barrington Declaration. (https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-vaccine-rollout-marred-by-confusion-false-claims-233349756.html https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-vaccine-rollout-marred-by...) https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/missouri-v-biden-ruling.pdf https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/missou... > Masks are harmful, so that one isn't really misinformation. Masks aren't harmful, as evidenced by the countless people who wear them all the time either professionally or just to avoid spreading/catching illness.

nostrebored 3y ago
> "I haven't found one directly, but here's this other thing" This misrepresentation and miscategorization of people with legitimate complaints about public health policy is the entire problem with discourse here. The petition against lockdowns made perfect sense at the time and still does today. Countries like Sweden have not seen the long term outcomes models predicted, and these models were used to inform public health policy, despite our knowledge _at the time_ that they were poorly made, in many cases unreproducible, and a poor proxy for empirical evidence. This empirical evidence had led to the CDC guidelines we had for outbreaks that we threw out of the window at the beginning of the pandemic. There is very little decent science around masks. Masks have not been shown to avoid spreading or catching illnesses, even in those professional settings that you mention. For example, take this analysis of 3 RCTs that does not find substantial evidence to support the benefit of even N95 masks in clinical settings: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M23-0570 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M23-0570 What was produced at the beginning of the pandemic was a doctrine. It was, and still is, not absurd to question that doctrine.