The ordeal was posting a jpg from a completely shady YouTube guy, not disclosing the source, responding with trolls and gibberish when people asked for the source, and further dissembling when people correctly point out that the original source was an unpublished preprint that should be taken with a great degree of skepticism.
I suppose that’s fair. CN gets out of line quite often.
No. I haven’t. I’ve called him by what he is, a nurse.
Is there something about a PhD in nursing (research doctorate) that makes someone less qualified than an MD (professional doctorate) to understand the current state of COVID research?
Yes. Relevant training in understanding medical literature, which doctors get at least 7 years in, and JC has clearly missed a few lessons.
Is this the guy in question? If so, he literally goes by “Nurse John” on his social media accounts.
That was accepted and published in Science three weeks later? Haven’t been in the academic science world in a while, is it still a decent journal?
This seems fair, but church claims he did post the link fairly quickly after. I will venture a guess that you can correct or not that the initial responses included a fairly aggressive tone towards church (the only linked post here included “a sucker for any brit” for example). That might also helped fuel the “trolls” you mention.
I will say again that while these cases have not convinced me, i fully agree that there’s a chance churchill isn’t a good poster, especially when it comes to scientific pedigree. Every piece evidence i’ve seen shows he is treated like shit and is treating you guys like shit.
In August 2020, UNICEF’s regional office for Europe and Central Asia cited Campbell’s YouTube channel as an excellent example of how experts might engage with social media to combat misinformation,[16] citing a March 2020 briefing by Social Science in Action.[17] In an October 2020 interview on DW, Campbell is introduced as “an independent health analyst and one of the UK’s on-line authorities on this pandemic.”[18]
No, Nurse John Campbell goes by ‘Dr John Campbell’ on his social media accounts.
Cool beans, they ended up being wrong about that didn’t they!
To be fair, he might simply want to avoid being confused with legendary New Orleans musicians Dr. John.
which i have submitted to a @Pauwl walrus before and did not win. This is something that should be discussed in AM instead of this crap.
It’s funny how people post this as some sort of dunk while missing the major edits on precisely the issue the people here identified. Nah dude, this ain’t your time.
what does that mean sir? it appears that paper, while having some issues that you guys correctly identified, has been deemed fairly important. I seriously think you have no experience whatsoever in publishing papers by this post.
If you think accurately calling someone a nurse is belittling nurses that’s an actual bad look.
PICKLES
(we’re saying random words?)
I will say again that Churchill claims that he published the link within 5 minutes and it was deleted. Can a mod verify if that is true or not?
If he did, i believe @MakeHaste owes him an apology (I think he’s the only one here willing to do so if that information is indeed correct).
Seeing a post like this which doesn’t even understand what getting published 3 weeks after in Science means in reality shows that CN is really not in a position to criticize research papers any more than Dr John is.
Link me to the post, and I’ll see if I can check.
Also, I’m mostly fine with people arguing here, but let’s cut out the trolling.
The “bad faith” police want moderators to take action about improper citations of studies that were eventually published in the top scientific journal in US… Lol.
This is an internet discussion forum. Suzzer posts like a dozen tweets a day about Ukraine war from random unsubstantiated twitter feeds and the same folks are mashing the like button.
GMAFB. Y’all trying so hard to pretend you’re right about trying to run off regulars you don’t like for stuff that isn’t worthy of a temp ban let alone a perma.
This is all obfuscation.
Not clear if it was submitted to Science at the same time as the preprint was published. Kind of doubt it as three weeks is extremely fast even for minor revisions to be turned around.
You’re not following this 100%. The posted link was to a paper that was not the source of the jpg.