Given that a large fraction (all?) of this article is an attack specifically on me, I feel I have the right to reply.
Before I get into the meat of it, let me say it's simultaneously stunning audacity and cowardice to bring my young daughters into your public attacks against me. Also, I'm sure you're aware that your entire writing style is what's called "begging the question". It's vacuous. You make a factual claim e.g., "bereft of a shred of supporting evidence", but don't actually justify it. I'm not sure if that's because you think your audience can't handle a logical argument or if it's because you can't back it up (I suspect the latter, not the former, but not sure). But given that there are places where you’ve advised other anti-vac people to be careful about what facts they discuss it’s clear you can be selective with the truth. Additionally it’s remarkable that some of your claims contradict one another. And oh, the irony of claiming you’re a victim of ad hominem attacks in the same place you use words like “bleating”, “ninnies”, and “sadistic”. The speed with which you jump to colorful but personal insults has been very frustrating over the last few years. My friend never did that. It's genuinely heartbreaking to see what's become of you. You often say to people who treat you in a similar way “it’s unfortunate you do that. It says a lot about you. Why do you do that?” Why do you?
So let's get to it. Much of this article was clearly stimulated by my recent request that you engage in some introspection - I should address that.
First: when you follow me on twitter under a fake name it's fair for me to lay down some ground rules for you. In this case I asked you to prove you were capable of thinking critically about your behavior rather than just insulting others - that "introspection".
Second, it is fair for me to ask you to engage in some introspection when you "quote" me, attack me for what I "said", refuse to tell me exactly where that "quote" originated, and then when I finally hunt it down I discover your entire line of attack is predicated on the absence of a word that was in the original quote but disappeared when you copied it over (receipts in this thread: https://twitter.com/joel_c_miller/status/1447904852105854978?s=20&t=T-y2ZERMpgnnHCnT-oeNsA). Even worse, the context was that you were responding to my request that you check your claims before tweeting since you had made some very false claims. I valued your opinion, but not if it's based on falsehoods. Instead of agreeing to stop spreading falsehoods, you simply misquoted me and falsely accused me of making an inaccurate statement. You should engage in introspection when you make a false accusation in your attempt to deflect from my request that you stop making false claims.
Similarly it is fair for me to suggest you engage in some introspection after this sequence of events:
Jan 2021 - you directly and publicly ask for my comment on a UK policy. I tell you I don't want to comment on it. You ask again. I privately request that you stop asking. Finally after you keep badgering me I *privately* tell you my opinion out of the false assumption you are acting in good faith. Nine months later you accuse me of "wading into other countries' decisions", using my private answer as your example. Of course you were aware that I lived in the UK for 5 years, that my wife grew up in the UK, and that my in-laws still had their residence there. The amount of hypocrisy in attacking me for having the temerity to “wade into other countries’ decisions” by privately answering your repeated direct question about a country I had a close connection to is stunning. Even more so when your own history is full of publicly wading into decisions of countries you have zero knowledge of.
Also it's fair for me to ask you to engage in introspection when you promote protest marches organized by neo-nazi groups, or where gallows appear and speakers discuss executing political opponents... Or protests where crowds are “raging” (the word chosen in the tweet promoting the marchers) at night while carrying burning torches and signs attacking immigrants. A bit brownshirty. Especially after you've directly stated that you're inspired by a desire to not repeat the mistakes of your nazi grandfather and repeatedly suggest that I'm similar to him. Where is the red line that separates you from your grandfather because I kind of think he’d support you on this.
Now let’s talk about some contradictions coming from team amateur.
You claim that you were infected by COVID in mid-2019 and that it had been widespread worldwide throughout 2019 (you've even promoted claims the mid 2019 influenza epidemic in Australia was COVID). You also claim that China was aware of this the entire time. Simultaneously you suggest that it came from the lab in Wuhan. If that were all true, It seems quite odd then that China didn't report discovering COVID in incoming passengers (they would have been able to deflect blame to other countries). Then they compounded that error by choosing to first report cases in Wuhan of all places (there would have been many other places to "discover" it that would have kept the scent off of the Wuhan lab). China is not so amateurish.
It's also odd that you tweet things like this: https://twitter.com/AlexStarling77/status/1453333793734074368?s=20&t=Xu5yQLKknDHANBpLhun3cA about how COVID must have started in the Wuhan lab since the first cases were observed nearby and local seroprevalence was low. (ie it was novel to Wuhan in December 2019). Do you really believe that it originated in Wuhan, was still novel to Wuhan in Dec 2019, and yet up above you argue it was already widespread in the UK? Are trying to trick your audience, or are you genuinely able to hold multiple contradictory conspiracies in your mind at the same time? Either way, some introspection is in order. If falsehoods are needed to make your argument that would explain why you rely on rhetorical tricks like begging the question to give the appearance of having facts.
Now your headline claims to have "receipts". Speaking of receipts:
- on 13 April 2020, you said that COVID was finished in South West London.
- on 19 July 2020, you demanded I explain why I didn't believe COVID was over.
- on 20 July 2020, you referred to COVID as "a respiratory disease that has fizzled out".
- on 23 July 2020, you said that the data from around the world will show it has burned out.
- in November 2020 you said the pandemic was "demonstrably over" and suggested that anyone who questioned that was delusional.
- basically throughout mid-late 2020, even as late as Jan 2021 you mocked the idea of a second wave.
I think it's fair to say there was a second wave (and third, and ...) and COVID was not done in April 2020. Team amateur did not do well on this.
As an aside, the vaccine was incredibly effective against infection by and onwards transmission of the ancestral strain and subsequent strains including Delta. It was only when Omicron appeared that this changed (though even with Omicron it remains partly effective against infection/transmission and it is still highly effective against severe outcomes). That's well-established, and borne out for example in the fact that vaccination was able to stop the Delta wave in Australia, almost exactly at the levels the modelers predicted.
Finally - you don't know the full professional relationship between myself and the researcher you claim I insulted. But there's enough discussion between us in public forums that you likely know you are misrepresenting our interactions. I have made active efforts to promote her and her research during the pandemic (you can ask). It wouldn’t be the first time you’ve knowingly misrepresented something about me. If you must make the accusation then rather than using her as a rhetorical tool (like you used my daughters), treat her as a person and first check with her whether she's okay with you using her to attack me.
Hi Alex,
Given that a large fraction (all?) of this article is an attack specifically on me, I feel I have the right to reply.
Before I get into the meat of it, let me say it's simultaneously stunning audacity and cowardice to bring my young daughters into your public attacks against me. Also, I'm sure you're aware that your entire writing style is what's called "begging the question". It's vacuous. You make a factual claim e.g., "bereft of a shred of supporting evidence", but don't actually justify it. I'm not sure if that's because you think your audience can't handle a logical argument or if it's because you can't back it up (I suspect the latter, not the former, but not sure). But given that there are places where you’ve advised other anti-vac people to be careful about what facts they discuss it’s clear you can be selective with the truth. Additionally it’s remarkable that some of your claims contradict one another. And oh, the irony of claiming you’re a victim of ad hominem attacks in the same place you use words like “bleating”, “ninnies”, and “sadistic”. The speed with which you jump to colorful but personal insults has been very frustrating over the last few years. My friend never did that. It's genuinely heartbreaking to see what's become of you. You often say to people who treat you in a similar way “it’s unfortunate you do that. It says a lot about you. Why do you do that?” Why do you?
So let's get to it. Much of this article was clearly stimulated by my recent request that you engage in some introspection - I should address that.
First: when you follow me on twitter under a fake name it's fair for me to lay down some ground rules for you. In this case I asked you to prove you were capable of thinking critically about your behavior rather than just insulting others - that "introspection".
Second, it is fair for me to ask you to engage in some introspection when you "quote" me, attack me for what I "said", refuse to tell me exactly where that "quote" originated, and then when I finally hunt it down I discover your entire line of attack is predicated on the absence of a word that was in the original quote but disappeared when you copied it over (receipts in this thread: https://twitter.com/joel_c_miller/status/1447904852105854978?s=20&t=T-y2ZERMpgnnHCnT-oeNsA). Even worse, the context was that you were responding to my request that you check your claims before tweeting since you had made some very false claims. I valued your opinion, but not if it's based on falsehoods. Instead of agreeing to stop spreading falsehoods, you simply misquoted me and falsely accused me of making an inaccurate statement. You should engage in introspection when you make a false accusation in your attempt to deflect from my request that you stop making false claims.
Similarly it is fair for me to suggest you engage in some introspection after this sequence of events:
Jan 2021 - you directly and publicly ask for my comment on a UK policy. I tell you I don't want to comment on it. You ask again. I privately request that you stop asking. Finally after you keep badgering me I *privately* tell you my opinion out of the false assumption you are acting in good faith. Nine months later you accuse me of "wading into other countries' decisions", using my private answer as your example. Of course you were aware that I lived in the UK for 5 years, that my wife grew up in the UK, and that my in-laws still had their residence there. The amount of hypocrisy in attacking me for having the temerity to “wade into other countries’ decisions” by privately answering your repeated direct question about a country I had a close connection to is stunning. Even more so when your own history is full of publicly wading into decisions of countries you have zero knowledge of.
Also it's fair for me to ask you to engage in introspection when you promote protest marches organized by neo-nazi groups, or where gallows appear and speakers discuss executing political opponents... Or protests where crowds are “raging” (the word chosen in the tweet promoting the marchers) at night while carrying burning torches and signs attacking immigrants. A bit brownshirty. Especially after you've directly stated that you're inspired by a desire to not repeat the mistakes of your nazi grandfather and repeatedly suggest that I'm similar to him. Where is the red line that separates you from your grandfather because I kind of think he’d support you on this.
Now let’s talk about some contradictions coming from team amateur.
You claim that you were infected by COVID in mid-2019 and that it had been widespread worldwide throughout 2019 (you've even promoted claims the mid 2019 influenza epidemic in Australia was COVID). You also claim that China was aware of this the entire time. Simultaneously you suggest that it came from the lab in Wuhan. If that were all true, It seems quite odd then that China didn't report discovering COVID in incoming passengers (they would have been able to deflect blame to other countries). Then they compounded that error by choosing to first report cases in Wuhan of all places (there would have been many other places to "discover" it that would have kept the scent off of the Wuhan lab). China is not so amateurish.
It's also odd that you tweet things like this: https://twitter.com/AlexStarling77/status/1453333793734074368?s=20&t=Xu5yQLKknDHANBpLhun3cA about how COVID must have started in the Wuhan lab since the first cases were observed nearby and local seroprevalence was low. (ie it was novel to Wuhan in December 2019). Do you really believe that it originated in Wuhan, was still novel to Wuhan in Dec 2019, and yet up above you argue it was already widespread in the UK? Are trying to trick your audience, or are you genuinely able to hold multiple contradictory conspiracies in your mind at the same time? Either way, some introspection is in order. If falsehoods are needed to make your argument that would explain why you rely on rhetorical tricks like begging the question to give the appearance of having facts.
Now your headline claims to have "receipts". Speaking of receipts:
- on 13 April 2020, you said that COVID was finished in South West London.
- on 19 July 2020, you demanded I explain why I didn't believe COVID was over.
- on 20 July 2020, you referred to COVID as "a respiratory disease that has fizzled out".
- on 23 July 2020, you said that the data from around the world will show it has burned out.
- in November 2020 you said the pandemic was "demonstrably over" and suggested that anyone who questioned that was delusional.
- basically throughout mid-late 2020, even as late as Jan 2021 you mocked the idea of a second wave.
I think it's fair to say there was a second wave (and third, and ...) and COVID was not done in April 2020. Team amateur did not do well on this.
As an aside, the vaccine was incredibly effective against infection by and onwards transmission of the ancestral strain and subsequent strains including Delta. It was only when Omicron appeared that this changed (though even with Omicron it remains partly effective against infection/transmission and it is still highly effective against severe outcomes). That's well-established, and borne out for example in the fact that vaccination was able to stop the Delta wave in Australia, almost exactly at the levels the modelers predicted.
Finally - you don't know the full professional relationship between myself and the researcher you claim I insulted. But there's enough discussion between us in public forums that you likely know you are misrepresenting our interactions. I have made active efforts to promote her and her research during the pandemic (you can ask). It wouldn’t be the first time you’ve knowingly misrepresented something about me. If you must make the accusation then rather than using her as a rhetorical tool (like you used my daughters), treat her as a person and first check with her whether she's okay with you using her to attack me.