In response to critiques of her column, she did what most people would do when given feedback - blocked and labeled dissenters as "antivaxxers".
Then pivoted to claiming she was always opposed to toddlers masking, except of course when it comes to kindergartners and younger "even if they mask improperly".
I went to the link on the Cochrane website and read the complete statement. It is indeed not what I was expecting based on reports elsewhere.
Counterintuitively, unless you were looking for it specifically, you would not find this statement linked anywhere from the page containing the Cochrane review under discussion. You have to go back to the main Cochrane homepage and then click on "News and Jobs".
The statement also says "We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses." I look forward to seeing the updated language when it's released.
"a March 2020 Tufekci tweetstorm followed by a Tufekci New York Times essay convinced the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to alter federal guidance and advise all Americans above the age of 2 to wear masks."
This is spicy stuff. Did the CDC announce their guidance was based on Tufekci's tweets?
"Neither scholar nor journalist, Tufekci ignores academic rigor by posing as professor and then peer reviewing research in her own Times’ essays. She then flouts journalistic ethics by failing to report facts that don’t fit her academic opinion."
Fellow substacker mbalter argues you make the "appeal to authority" argument, tagging your DisInfo account, but not you. Personally, I agree that remark may be a cheap shot, but it's also frustrating to see repeated pseudoscience presented as fact in the NYT.
I never imagined there would be a point where people argue that we can't trust high quality evidence, instead we should rely on surveys and observational studies. Unreal.
My feedback to them, you may want to chime in too:
In response to critiques of her column, she did what most people would do when given feedback - blocked and labeled dissenters as "antivaxxers".
Then pivoted to claiming she was always opposed to toddlers masking, except of course when it comes to kindergartners and younger "even if they mask improperly".
https://twitter.com/MichaelDAmbro17/status/1635640791799414792
Im happy i smelled her bull$&it and ego EARLY on. Thank you for laying her out for all to see. 🙏🏻🇨🇦
I went to the link on the Cochrane website and read the complete statement. It is indeed not what I was expecting based on reports elsewhere.
Counterintuitively, unless you were looking for it specifically, you would not find this statement linked anywhere from the page containing the Cochrane review under discussion. You have to go back to the main Cochrane homepage and then click on "News and Jobs".
The statement also says "We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses." I look forward to seeing the updated language when it's released.
"a March 2020 Tufekci tweetstorm followed by a Tufekci New York Times essay convinced the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to alter federal guidance and advise all Americans above the age of 2 to wear masks."
This is spicy stuff. Did the CDC announce their guidance was based on Tufekci's tweets?
In a complaint likely on this part of your essay:
"Neither scholar nor journalist, Tufekci ignores academic rigor by posing as professor and then peer reviewing research in her own Times’ essays. She then flouts journalistic ethics by failing to report facts that don’t fit her academic opinion."
Fellow substacker mbalter argues you make the "appeal to authority" argument, tagging your DisInfo account, but not you. Personally, I agree that remark may be a cheap shot, but it's also frustrating to see repeated pseudoscience presented as fact in the NYT.
I never imagined there would be a point where people argue that we can't trust high quality evidence, instead we should rely on surveys and observational studies. Unreal.
My feedback to them, you may want to chime in too:
https://twitter.com/MichaelDAmbro17/status/1636406922495639566