Covid vaccine mandates were based on hope

The CDC claimed that the science supported vaccine mandates to “stop the spread.” Remember? From April 27, 2022? It’s in the text explaining the CDC link about vaccination. Yeah, the CDC removed that text, but the search database kept it. However, today, in response to a question by Jim Jordan, Deborah Birx, formerly of the

Relying on fact checkers is lazy

People who do the work–reading scientific papers and looking at scientific data–have an advantage. They can tell who else has done the work and who hasn’t. Like people who rely on fact checkers. It’s obvious that such people are lazy and ignorant. They might even have college degrees. Lazy people might even have MD after

Dodgy science does not reduce vaccine hesitancy–Cerebral vein thrombosis: comparing vaccination cases and covid cases

There’s a study from 2021, referenced by 26 other studies when I searched, which compares vaccinated people who get cerebral vein thrombosis (CVT), which is a clot growing in the wall of a vein in the cerebrum, with unvaccinated people who get covid and CVT. Covid in unvaccinated people produce 39 cases of CVT per

The CDC’s incompetence about masking

The CDC mandated masks. Any old masks. Cloth rags. Bandannas. Medical masks. These were all bogus. None of them were going to stop virus spread. I’ve covered why this is so already. Now there’s a paper out supporting my position on masks increasing the evaporation rate of droplets. This paper is from some physicists working

An analysis of problematic science writing–round 2

(This is a follow up to my post about an example of problematic writing about science where I looked at a problem with interpreting p-values.) In this post we’ll look at evidentiary weight–is a question about evidence and bias a mountain or a mole hill? That matters a lot. We want to focus on mountains,

How to write cleverly about science–an example from Clare Craig

(Next post, I will look at an example of obtuse writing about science.) Clare Craig is a co-chair of the Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART). She looked at a paper in the journal, Nature, about cardiovascular problems from covid. First I read Craig’s paper. I didn’t really understand the problems at first. It looked

Science is not about suppressing “misinformation”; science is a conversation about data and ideas

People have trouble understanding what science is and thus we have censorship which is justified by claims that misinformation must be suppressed. We need to understand that this approach only suppresses science because today’s misinformation might be tomorrow’s fact. We have seen this phenomenon in the last year. Several items that were called “misinformation” are