Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/flsurgeongen/status/1578515633159180289?s=46&t=WL_zrOTp0uvN8lrJuUecdw

Was Twitter in the right to delete this? I’m undecided as I don’t have a science background.

I dont think you have to have a science background to decide whether twitter should censor the FL surgeon general.

Science changes. Thats the whole point of scientific research. To test and validate what we know, while making discoveries to enhance our knowledge. Twitter is anti science because they oppose the discussion and inquiry necessary to improve our body of knowledge.

I’m sure Twitter acted after it heard from legit scientists and experts that the FLSG’s post was dangerous disinformation. The SG is not interested in a good faith discussion.

It doesn’t matter if Twitter heard from “legit scientists and experts.” Those people can be and often are wrong, too. That is the whole point of science. It is not about specious appeals to authority, but rather rigorous, empirical testing. Even if the Florida surgeon general is completely wrong, what should happen is that he should be refuted with actual evidence. Not silenced for being incorrect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/flsurgeongen/status/1578515633159180289?s=46&t=WL_zrOTp0uvN8lrJuUecdw

Was Twitter in the right to delete this? I’m undecided as I don’t have a science background.

I dont think you have to have a science background to decide whether twitter should censor the FL surgeon general.

Science changes. Thats the whole point of scientific research. To test and validate what we know, while making discoveries to enhance our knowledge. Twitter is anti science because they oppose the discussion and inquiry necessary to improve our body of knowledge.

I’m sure Twitter acted after it heard from legit scientists and experts that the FLSG’s post was dangerous disinformation. The SG is not interested in a good faith discussion.

Would you consider a MD / PHD from Harvard University a “non legit” scientist? And would you consider a remote worker at Twitter who monitors posts for a living more credentialed than him to analyze scientific literature?

This appeal to authority is odd. Plenty of craven partisans who attended Harvard, like Peter Navarro, Tom Cotton, and John Roberts put politics above all else and torture data and facts until they fit their preconceived narrative.

Thank you. Given the FL SG is an extreme outlier on such important health matters, and his 'opinions' align with DeSantis' political positions, I remain unconvinced that he is a legit scientist.

NP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/flsurgeongen/status/1578515633159180289?s=46&t=WL_zrOTp0uvN8lrJuUecdw

Was Twitter in the right to delete this? I’m undecided as I don’t have a science background.

I dont think you have to have a science background to decide whether twitter should censor the FL surgeon general.

Science changes. Thats the whole point of scientific research. To test and validate what we know, while making discoveries to enhance our knowledge. Twitter is anti science because they oppose the discussion and inquiry necessary to improve our body of knowledge.

I’m sure Twitter acted after it heard from legit scientists and experts that the FLSG’s post was dangerous disinformation. The SG is not interested in a good faith discussion.

Would you consider a MD / PHD from Harvard University a “non legit” scientist? And would you consider a remote worker at Twitter who monitors posts for a living more credentialed than him to analyze scientific literature?

This appeal to authority is odd. Plenty of craven partisans who attended Harvard, like Peter Navarro, Tom Cotton, and John Roberts put politics above all else and torture data and facts until they fit their preconceived narrative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/flsurgeongen/status/1578515633159180289?s=46&t=WL_zrOTp0uvN8lrJuUecdw

Was Twitter in the right to delete this? I’m undecided as I don’t have a science background.

I dont think you have to have a science background to decide whether twitter should censor the FL surgeon general.

Science changes. Thats the whole point of scientific research. To test and validate what we know, while making discoveries to enhance our knowledge. Twitter is anti science because they oppose the discussion and inquiry necessary to improve our body of knowledge.

I’m sure Twitter acted after it heard from legit scientists and experts that the FLSG’s post was dangerous disinformation. The SG is not interested in a good faith discussion.

Ah yes, "legit" scientists. Unlike the MD and PhD they censored. He is illegitimate because they dont like his research.

Normally this is handled in the peer review process by other "legit scientists." But I can see the appeal of handing it over to non-scientists who simply delete it, so the world can stay simple and uncomplicated, even if it means we dont advance scientific understanding.

Was the study actually peer reviewed? Putting it on Twitter is not the same as publishing it in a journal.

Since they deleted the link, its hard to say.

The link is right there in the tweet at the top of this thread. Here it is again: https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221007-guidance-mrna-covid19-vaccines-doc.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/flsurgeongen/status/1578515633159180289?s=46&t=WL_zrOTp0uvN8lrJuUecdw

Was Twitter in the right to delete this? I’m undecided as I don’t have a science background.

I dont think you have to have a science background to decide whether twitter should censor the FL surgeon general.

Science changes. Thats the whole point of scientific research. To test and validate what we know, while making discoveries to enhance our knowledge. Twitter is anti science because they oppose the discussion and inquiry necessary to improve our body of knowledge.

I’m sure Twitter acted after it heard from legit scientists and experts that the FLSG’s post was dangerous disinformation. The SG is not interested in a good faith discussion.

Would you consider a MD / PHD from Harvard University a “non legit” scientist? And would you consider a remote worker at Twitter who monitors posts for a living more credentialed than him to analyze scientific literature?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/flsurgeongen/status/1578515633159180289?s=46&t=WL_zrOTp0uvN8lrJuUecdw

Was Twitter in the right to delete this? I’m undecided as I don’t have a science background.

I dont think you have to have a science background to decide whether twitter should censor the FL surgeon general.

Science changes. Thats the whole point of scientific research. To test and validate what we know, while making discoveries to enhance our knowledge. Twitter is anti science because they oppose the discussion and inquiry necessary to improve our body of knowledge.

I’m sure Twitter acted after it heard from legit scientists and experts that the FLSG’s post was dangerous disinformation. The SG is not interested in a good faith discussion.

Ah yes, "legit" scientists. Unlike the MD and PhD they censored. He is illegitimate because they dont like his research.

Normally this is handled in the peer review process by other "legit scientists." But I can see the appeal of handing it over to non-scientists who simply delete it, so the world can stay simple and uncomplicated, even if it means we dont advance scientific understanding.

Was the study actually peer reviewed? Putting it on Twitter is not the same as publishing it in a journal.

Since they deleted the link, its hard to say. But given the context and the credentials of the poster, it would be odd if it werent. Twitter has been taken to court several times by medical researchers several times after their research was labeled disinformation, and Twitter has lost. Its one thing to censor things like "drink bleach to cure covid" and an entirely different thing to censor actual scientific research from credentialed experts. These things are not the same at all. We can be in favor of censoring truly dangerous types of misinformation while also being against Twitter deleting scientific research that the Twitter team believes counters its political agenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/flsurgeongen/status/1578515633159180289?s=46&t=WL_zrOTp0uvN8lrJuUecdw

Was Twitter in the right to delete this? I’m undecided as I don’t have a science background.

I dont think you have to have a science background to decide whether twitter should censor the FL surgeon general.

Science changes. Thats the whole point of scientific research. To test and validate what we know, while making discoveries to enhance our knowledge. Twitter is anti science because they oppose the discussion and inquiry necessary to improve our body of knowledge.

I wonder why Florida has experienced a much higher overall death rate than more highly vaccinated states during the post-vaccine pandemic year. I'm sure there's a scientific answer to that.

I’m sure there is, too, but if Ladapo and DeSantis have their way, no one would ever discuss that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/flsurgeongen/status/1578515633159180289?s=46&t=WL_zrOTp0uvN8lrJuUecdw

Was Twitter in the right to delete this? I’m undecided as I don’t have a science background.

I dont think you have to have a science background to decide whether twitter should censor the FL surgeon general.

Science changes. Thats the whole point of scientific research. To test and validate what we know, while making discoveries to enhance our knowledge. Twitter is anti science because they oppose the discussion and inquiry necessary to improve our body of knowledge.

I’m sure Twitter acted after it heard from legit scientists and experts that the FLSG’s post was dangerous disinformation. The SG is not interested in a good faith discussion.

Ah yes, "legit" scientists. Unlike the MD and PhD they censored. He is illegitimate because they dont like his research.

Normally this is handled in the peer review process by other "legit scientists." But I can see the appeal of handing it over to non-scientists who simply delete it, so the world can stay simple and uncomplicated, even if it means we dont advance scientific understanding.

Was the study actually peer reviewed? Putting it on Twitter is not the same as publishing it in a journal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/flsurgeongen/status/1578515633159180289?s=46&t=WL_zrOTp0uvN8lrJuUecdw

Was Twitter in the right to delete this? I’m undecided as I don’t have a science background.

I dont think you have to have a science background to decide whether twitter should censor the FL surgeon general.

Science changes. Thats the whole point of scientific research. To test and validate what we know, while making discoveries to enhance our knowledge. Twitter is anti science because they oppose the discussion and inquiry necessary to improve our body of knowledge.

I’m sure Twitter acted after it heard from legit scientists and experts that the FLSG’s post was dangerous disinformation. The SG is not interested in a good faith discussion.

Ah yes, "legit" scientists. Unlike the MD and PhD they censored. He is illegitimate because they dont like his research.

Normally this is handled in the peer review process by other "legit scientists." But I can see the appeal of handing it over to non-scientists who simply delete it, so the world can stay simple and uncomplicated, even if it means we dont advance scientific understanding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/flsurgeongen/status/1578515633159180289?s=46&t=WL_zrOTp0uvN8lrJuUecdw

Was Twitter in the right to delete this? I’m undecided as I don’t have a science background.

I dont think you have to have a science background to decide whether twitter should censor the FL surgeon general.

Science changes. Thats the whole point of scientific research. To test and validate what we know, while making discoveries to enhance our knowledge. Twitter is anti science because they oppose the discussion and inquiry necessary to improve our body of knowledge.

I wonder why Florida has experienced a much higher overall death rate than more highly vaccinated states during the post-vaccine pandemic year. I'm sure there's a scientific answer to that.

Yes, there are likely several answers that can be obtained through an iterative process of research, analysis, and discussion. This answer likely wont be accelerated by Twitter's Trust and Safety team deleting actual peer reviewed scientific publications.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/flsurgeongen/status/1578515633159180289?s=46&t=WL_zrOTp0uvN8lrJuUecdw

Was Twitter in the right to delete this? I’m undecided as I don’t have a science background.

I dont think you have to have a science background to decide whether twitter should censor the FL surgeon general.

Science changes. Thats the whole point of scientific research. To test and validate what we know, while making discoveries to enhance our knowledge. Twitter is anti science because they oppose the discussion and inquiry necessary to improve our body of knowledge.

I’m sure Twitter acted after it heard from legit scientists and experts that the FLSG’s post was dangerous disinformation. The SG is not interested in a good faith discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/flsurgeongen/status/1578515633159180289?s=46&t=WL_zrOTp0uvN8lrJuUecdw

Was Twitter in the right to delete this? I’m undecided as I don’t have a science background.

I dont think you have to have a science background to decide whether twitter should censor the FL surgeon general.

Science changes. Thats the whole point of scientific research. To test and validate what we know, while making discoveries to enhance our knowledge. Twitter is anti science because they oppose the discussion and inquiry necessary to improve our body of knowledge.

I wonder why Florida has experienced a much higher overall death rate than more highly vaccinated states during the post-vaccine pandemic year. I'm sure there's a scientific answer to that.

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/flsurgeongen/status/1578515633159180289?s=46&t=WL_zrOTp0uvN8lrJuUecdw

Was Twitter in the right to delete this? I’m undecided as I don’t have a science background.

I dont think you have to have a science background to decide whether twitter should censor the FL surgeon general.

Science changes. Thats the whole point of scientific research. To test and validate what we know, while making discoveries to enhance our knowledge. Twitter is anti science because they oppose the discussion and inquiry necessary to improve our body of knowledge.

https://twitter.com/flsurgeongen/status/1578515633159180289?s=46&t=WL_zrOTp0uvN8lrJuUecdw

Was Twitter in the right to delete this? I’m undecided as I don’t have a science background.