Read on Twitter
i realize that dunking on fauci is, at this point, like using a trampoline to jam on an 8 foot hoop, but this fricking guy really does invite it.
americans are not "anti-science" they're anti-charlatan.
and fauci is a pure, unadulterated huckster. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/18/politics/anthony-fauci-coronavirus-anti-science-bias/index.html
americans are not "anti-science" they're anti-charlatan.
and fauci is a pure, unadulterated huckster. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/18/politics/anthony-fauci-coronavirus-anti-science-bias/index.html
here he is claiming that "lockdowns saved millions" and waving around "papers" that are such nonscientific drivel that anyone citing them is either mathematically illiterate or deeply mendacious.
which one makes you want that guy charge of health policy? https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/503468-fauci-defends-coronavirus-lockdowns-as-saving-millions-of-lives
which one makes you want that guy charge of health policy? https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/503468-fauci-defends-coronavirus-lockdowns-as-saving-millions-of-lives
this is the nonsense wrapped in mathiness that he's citing
it literally says "our model, which has been wildly wrong in all its predictions, is validated because it was wrong. so the policy we advocated must have worked"
the miss proves our assumptions https://twitter.com/boriquagato/status/1270036368991719424?s=20
it literally says "our model, which has been wildly wrong in all its predictions, is validated because it was wrong. so the policy we advocated must have worked"
the miss proves our assumptions https://twitter.com/boriquagato/status/1270036368991719424?s=20
many noticed this, and anyone who actually read it found this glaringly obvious
it was not published to be read or to be verified
it was published to be splashed in headlines and used to justify catastrophic policy choices and pin medals on the bad guys https://twitter.com/boriquagato/status/1270714189464498178?s=20
it was not published to be read or to be verified
it was published to be splashed in headlines and used to justify catastrophic policy choices and pin medals on the bad guys https://twitter.com/boriquagato/status/1270714189464498178?s=20
i'd like you all to really stop, take a breath, and consider something for a minute:
if the best "evidence" that a policy that did $10tn of damage globally worked are circular appeals to bad models, should a guy who proposed that policy get to call ANYONE anti science?
if the best "evidence" that a policy that did $10tn of damage globally worked are circular appeals to bad models, should a guy who proposed that policy get to call ANYONE anti science?
