Read on Twitter
My @BylineTimes story exposing the murky financial nexus of climate science denial behind the Great Barrington Declaration really upset the declaration& #39;s key sponsor, the AIER. They started with an attack in the Washington Examiner https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pro-lockdown-advocates-submit-hoax-signatures-to-an-anti-lockdown-declaration-signed-by-thousands-of-medical-experts">https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pro-... /1
Although AIER itself is systematically carrying out the & #39;fraud& #39; of pretending that they have verified the science credentials of its thousands of & #39;health expert& #39; signatories (they haven& #39;t), they accused me of doing the fraud for simply testing and exposing their system /2
They then thought that vandalising my @wikipedia entry would help them gain back some credibility as an organisation engaged in neutral and impartial support of science. /3
Since that didn& #39;t achieve much, the Declaration sponsors then published this hilarious article pretending I don& #39;t address the scientific integrity of the Declaration& #39;s arguments - and trying hard to convince readers they shouldn& #39;t care about funding https://www.aier.org/article/the-obsession-with-funders/">https://www.aier.org/article/t... /4
In that piece, AIER inadvertently lays quite a lot out about what sorts of interests really motivate them in life. This is unintentionally hilarious, but also useful, perhaps not in ways they anticipate. /5
Since no one really cares what the author of that AIER piece says, they went to their friends at National Review, but they repeat the same false claim that I don& #39;t actually refute the Declaration& #39;s argument /6 https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-left-argues-fallaciously-against-the-great-barrington-declaration/">https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/th...
The problem is that I do address the argument. Compare below. But AIER, its scientists, and these writers, have *no actual arguments* against these points, namely that the evidence so far suggests that immunity declines too quickly to allow & #39;herd immunity& #39; to be feasible /7
