5 ms·

USRTK is by no means an impartial source to grab scientific summaries from

by dappermanneke 3y ago

Attummm 3y ago
Could you elaborate why that would be the case?
- piva00 3y ago
  I got curious and went checking a bit deeper USRTK, haven't found much to discredit their reporting. Don't think we will get a well thought out argument given the user's comment history, a bit of a loony with a taste for hot takes with weird hyperbole.
- notthemessiah 3y ago
  As far as I can tell, there seems to effort to discredit USRTK citing how some major prior donors to USRTK (such as Organic Consumers Association) have become antivax organizations pushing conspiracy theories, but it seems the most this has resulted in is USRTK investigating lab leak theories of Covid-19's origin and a few events in collaboration with the antivax funders. All and all, it seems like some cause for scrutiny, but not anything close to discrediting the organization. > Dr. Kathleen Jamieson [professor of communication at the University of Pennsylvania and author of a recent article on conspiracists’ exploitation of uncertainty in COVID-19 science] argued USRTK’s work deserved scrutiny because of its funding and affiliations. But she also noted that the organization’s published research stopped short of open conspiracy theorizing on the virus’ origins. https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-right-to-know-fave-mainstream-media-source-is-funded-by-anti-vaxxers https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-right-to-know-fave-mainstre...
  - 1234letshaveatw 3y ago
    Why are you conflating antivaxing with origin investigations? At best it seems like Dr. Jamieson is trying to do narrative shaping. I'd prefer to hear from experts in virology on that topic instead of a professor of discourse manipulation.
josefresco 3y ago
This is the study they cite: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1203396109 https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1203396109 Is there something specific you'd like to point out?

USRTK is by no means an impartial source to grab scientific summaries from

Attummm 3y ago

Could you elaborate why that would be the case?

piva00 3y ago
I got curious and went checking a bit deeper USRTK, haven't found much to discredit their reporting. Don't think we will get a well thought out argument given the user's comment history, a bit of a loony with a taste for hot takes with weird hyperbole.
notthemessiah 3y ago
As far as I can tell, there seems to effort to discredit USRTK citing how some major prior donors to USRTK (such as Organic Consumers Association) have become antivax organizations pushing conspiracy theories, but it seems the most this has resulted in is USRTK investigating lab leak theories of Covid-19's origin and a few events in collaboration with the antivax funders. All and all, it seems like some cause for scrutiny, but not anything close to discrediting the organization. > Dr. Kathleen Jamieson [professor of communication at the University of Pennsylvania and author of a recent article on conspiracists’ exploitation of uncertainty in COVID-19 science] argued USRTK’s work deserved scrutiny because of its funding and affiliations. But she also noted that the organization’s published research stopped short of open conspiracy theorizing on the virus’ origins. https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-right-to-know-fave-mainstream-media-source-is-funded-by-anti-vaxxers https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-right-to-know-fave-mainstre...
- 1234letshaveatw 3y ago
  Why are you conflating antivaxing with origin investigations? At best it seems like Dr. Jamieson is trying to do narrative shaping. I'd prefer to hear from experts in virology on that topic instead of a professor of discourse manipulation.

josefresco 3y ago

This is the study they cite: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1203396109 https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1203396109 Is there something specific you'd like to point out?