On November 27, 2024, The New York Times published an Op-Ed titled "Trump’s Pick to Lead the NIH Gets Some Things Right” by Zeynep Tufekci. The piece contained several factual inaccuracies about NIH Director nominee Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, which Bryce Nickels and Kevin Bass discussed in
The Times is correct. The infection fatality rate is a completely different statistic than the inaccurate statistic Jay published proclaiming a high rate of infection based on their serum antibody studies.
Not surprised. This is the paper who published Walter Duranty's denial of the Holomodor in Stalinist Russia and let him keep the Pulitzer that he got for it. Also, Tufecki is NOT a physician, I don't know why they call her "Dr" in the letter. Like a lot of non MD covid celebrities, she made her fame during the pandemic, when she wholeheartedly applauded and endorsed all the most absurd and extreme pandemic edicts forced on us (lockdowns, forced masks for kids, wrecking the economy, vax mandates...etc). Unlike the smarter covid zealots like Dr Leana Wen, who is now apologizing and backing up on her past statements, the harebrained fanatics like Tufecki just keep doubling down on everything. Including of course mud slinging on those who were right like Dr Bhattacharya. What's surprising is that the Times still gives her a platform despite her record of being wrong on absolutely everything.
The author of the New York Times piece is a professor of SOCIOLOGY! Why would anyone be interested in her thoughts and opinions in the area of infectious disease epidemiology?
Consider sending a copy of the Times editorial, plus this post, to the 100 US Senators who will advise and consent on Dr. Bhattacharya. And to Trump and JD Vance.
This is the place in that Journal op-ed where "likely" appears in the context of an estimate of potential deaths: "It could make the difference between an epidemic that kills 20,000 and one that kills two million. If the number of actual infections is much larger than the number of cases—orders of magnitude larger—then the true fatality rate is much lower as well. That’s not only plausible but likely based on what we know so far."
The Times is correct. The infection fatality rate is a completely different statistic than the inaccurate statistic Jay published proclaiming a high rate of infection based on their serum antibody studies.
Not surprised. This is the paper who published Walter Duranty's denial of the Holomodor in Stalinist Russia and let him keep the Pulitzer that he got for it. Also, Tufecki is NOT a physician, I don't know why they call her "Dr" in the letter. Like a lot of non MD covid celebrities, she made her fame during the pandemic, when she wholeheartedly applauded and endorsed all the most absurd and extreme pandemic edicts forced on us (lockdowns, forced masks for kids, wrecking the economy, vax mandates...etc). Unlike the smarter covid zealots like Dr Leana Wen, who is now apologizing and backing up on her past statements, the harebrained fanatics like Tufecki just keep doubling down on everything. Including of course mud slinging on those who were right like Dr Bhattacharya. What's surprising is that the Times still gives her a platform despite her record of being wrong on absolutely everything.
I had the same problem on abortion misinformation with Revista Proceso, the top news, politics, analysis monthly mag in México.
But on Scientific Comedy:
https://open.substack.com/pub/federicosotodelalba/p/sci-and-math-are-having-a-second?r=4up0lp
NYT are bad faith actors
Who owns NYT?
So the NYT, for all the pomp, is really a cheap, lying tabloid.
The author of the New York Times piece is a professor of SOCIOLOGY! Why would anyone be interested in her thoughts and opinions in the area of infectious disease epidemiology?
Consider sending a copy of the Times editorial, plus this post, to the 100 US Senators who will advise and consent on Dr. Bhattacharya. And to Trump and JD Vance.
This is the place in that Journal op-ed where "likely" appears in the context of an estimate of potential deaths: "It could make the difference between an epidemic that kills 20,000 and one that kills two million. If the number of actual infections is much larger than the number of cases—orders of magnitude larger—then the true fatality rate is much lower as well. That’s not only plausible but likely based on what we know so far."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-the-coronavirus-as-deadly-as-they-say-11585088464?page=1
I used to subscribe to NY Times and the Washington Post. I don’t trust a word they are saying these days. It’s all lies and propaganda these days.
Life-long liberal here, ex-liberal now.