2020 Post Election MEGAthread

[douglas1999]

Originally Posted by hobart [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My "theory" was referencing another article that went around in April of this year which was a hoax. This, instead, is a non-story.

Ms. Brand's article was originally published in the school student newspaper -- not a peer reviewed scientific work. And it was taken down by the students who publish it.

From the students themselves: "Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.

We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we noted on social media."

Nothing to see.

"It was brought to our attention". By who? Are you so incurious you don't care who brought it to their attention, and why? And based on what? People are so enamored and infatuated with scientific jargon. A doofus idiot with no peer review can still be right about something. There are also serious issues with the peer review process, in that a group of people who already have conclusions they want to be true and all agree with eachother peer review eachother's papers. So even if it had the pedigree of peer review, that wouldn't necessarily be meaningful.

Why not actually engage with what is said in the paper, rather than saying "well because of this, I don't have to contend with it at all." while plugging your ears? Give it the benefit of the doubt and actually read what she said. It "has been used" to support "dangerous misinformation". So, other people who are not the author have used it to spread "dangerous misinformation". No specifics at all about what is dangerous or inaccurate, and their gripe isn't even about the paper or the author, but that other people are using it wrongly. Science will never move forward with this kind of paranoid censoring. The vast majority of scientific theories are wrong, the whole point is that they should all be consumed and considered and the right answer eventually teases itself out. Their conclusion that it "spreads dangerous disinformation" could itself be wrong. Maybe it doesn't, maybe it's right. She has serious credentials, it should be seriously considered.