Read on Twitter
My @BylineTimes story exposing the murky financial nexus of climate science denial behind the Great Barrington Declaration really upset the declaration'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 /1
Although AIER itself is systematically carrying out the 'fraud' of pretending that they have verified the science credentials of its thousands of 'health expert' signatories (they haven'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't achieve much, the Declaration sponsors then published this hilarious article pretending I don't address the scientific integrity of the Declaration's arguments - and trying hard to convince readers they shouldn't care about funding https://www.aier.org/article/the-obsession-with-funders/ /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't actually refute the Declaration's argument /6 https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-left-argues-fallaciously-against-the-great-barrington-declaration/
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 'herd immunity' to be feasible /7
Scientific critics of Declaration warn it fails to offer viable, effective ways to shield vulnerable, because doing so is inherently impracticable; fail to account for lack of evidence for lasting post-infection immunity; and ignore 'no lockdown' solutions from real-world /8
AIER's response is really quite extraordinary but demonstrates who they are really well: an ideological lobbying force obsessed with sanitising extreme deregulated markets, backed by special interest groups who benefit from this ideology. I don't see any science here. END
