Alex Berenson goes home devastated - Berenson permanently suspended from twitter

Alina Chan is a trained molecular biologist speculating on the original of a virus. That is very different than a journalist speculating on everything from epidemiology to immunology with a decidedly contrarian take every time.

My beef with Berenson has not been his failure to accurately predict future events (although he's failed as much or more than 'experts'), it's his hilariously disingenuous interpretations of real-time data. He sees data that COVID cases are increasing in places with vaccine: "Vaccines cause COVID."

He sees early reports of vaccinated:unvaccinated ratios in Israeli hospitals: "The vaccine doesn't work"

He was claiming for the longest time that because the vaccine trials did not read out hospitalizations or deaths that we should not expect them to actually protect against that, even if they protect against mild -> severe disease. This displays a fundamental failure to understand basic immunuology and biological principles. And it was, of course, very wrong.

Berenson has not been forecasting inasmuch as he has been deliberately misinterpreting real-time data to paint either a minimizing picture of COVID or to fearmonger vaccines.

Both of these are wildly inaccurate reads on the current state of things.

Did he have some more reasoned takes over the last 18th months, I'm sure! But they were all in service of his gigantic contrarian grift. I have plenty of room in my online-sphere for contrarian takes but Berenson has not been right about ONE major event thus far. He deserves practically no respect in these fields.

Take someone like Zeynep Tufekci if you want a non-expect with a track record of good analysis that often goes against the prevailing expert wisdom.

Lastly, Berenson, and all the other fearmongers on this board are vastly overstating the 'waning' of the vaccines against COVID. Even the usually-hysterical NYT was running a piece on this today. Add this to the endless list of his terrible analyses.

Long winded nutters pushing the establishment narrative are welcome on twitter.

As are proven liars and war criminals.

Challenge the vaccines narrative and you are banned.

DougC wrote:

That Tweet is pretty accurate… The vaccines don’t actually prevent infection. The CDC and Fauci have admitted as much. At best, they minimize your symptoms when you contract the virus and perhaps minimize your ability to spread the virus to others. Which is a good thing… it’s just that previous vaccines for other diseases actually prevent you from getting infected. That Tweet certainly is not misinformation.

I think this falls into the category of "technically accurate, but misleading".

As it happens, most vaccines don't provide sterilizing immunity. The smallpox vaccine and measles vaccines do, but the annual flu shot that we all know and love does not.

DontFeedTheTroll wrote:

DougC wrote:

That Tweet is pretty accurate… The vaccines don’t actually prevent infection. The CDC and Fauci have admitted as much. At best, they minimize your symptoms when you contract the virus and perhaps minimize your ability to spread the virus to others. Which is a good thing… it’s just that previous vaccines for other diseases actually prevent you from getting infected. That Tweet certainly is not misinformation.

I think this falls into the category of "technically accurate, but misleading".

As it happens, most vaccines don't provide sterilizing immunity. The smallpox vaccine and measles vaccines do, but the annual flu shot that we all know and love does not.

The fact that vaccinated people spread COVID far less than unvaxxed, even if the difference isn't 100%, makes his tweet misinformation.

Every part of that tweet is simply repeating the official statements of the CDC and other government authorities, other than saying it is insanity to mandate it.

America is Falling Fast wrote:

Every part of that tweet is simply repeating the official statements of the CDC and other government authorities, other than saying it is insanity to mandate it.

Except for the fact that it does stop infection and transmission in a large majority of instances and is quite literally "a vaccine."

So except for every word of the tweet, the tweet is true.

Lead Foil Hat XXVII wrote:

douglas burke wrote:

I agree it goes against freedom of speech, Twitter is likely a private company still

Nope, it is public:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/twtr/

The stupidity in America is horrifying. That’s why I’m leaving the country very soon. It’s one of the worst on the planet.

Let me help, a publicly traded company is still a private entity. Publicly owned entities (such state universities) are owned by the government and receive funding through the government. Privately held entities receive their funding via sales of their product. Private universities, for example, receive funding via tuition paid by the students.

A publicly traded company is owned by its shareholders. Not the government. Can the government own a private entity company? Absolutely. Take GM after the financial crisis. But that is very rare and an exceptional situation.

Maybe I was too harsh. I understand the terminology is confusing, but it’s basic stuff. Here’s a summary:

Public company: an entity traded on a stock exchange.

Private company: an entity not traded on a stock exchange.

Public entity: an entity that provides a service on behalf of the government and is funded by the government.

Private entity: any corporation, business, or anything that is not affiliated with the government.

So, Twitter is a publicly traded company and a private entity. As such, it can ban any customers they want so long is it doesn’t discriminate against a protected class. Just as Letsrun can ban any customers (poster) they want for any reason. As long as it doesn’t discriminate against a protected class.

Harambe wrote:

I followed Berenson on twitter. I also follow Alina Chan. They both make me think.

But why follow a non-subject expert? Even one that many think is wrong? Because are you not familiar with the work of Tetlock? Experts are often HORRIFIC at predictions. Please read this.

I was surprised when he went so anti-vax. To me, his main message last year was the virus is going to virus, we need to go about our every day lives. When the vaxes came out, I thought he'd argue for getting back to normal even more forcefully but that's not what he did.

But even if he's wrong about a lot of stuff, he points out a lot of things before others. Like how the vaccines weren't lasting in Israel, like how there is an increased spread normally when vaxxes are first introduced, etc.

Alina Chan is a trained molecular biologist speculating on the original of a virus. That is very different than a journalist speculating on everything from epidemiology to immunology with a decidedly contrarian take every time.

My beef with Berenson has not been his failure to accurately predict future events (although he's failed as much or more than 'experts'), it's his hilariously disingenuous interpretations of real-time data. He sees data that COVID cases are increasing in places with vaccine: "Vaccines cause COVID."

He sees early reports of vaccinated:unvaccinated ratios in Israeli hospitals: "The vaccine doesn't work"

He was claiming for the longest time that because the vaccine trials did not read out hospitalizations or deaths that we should not expect them to actually protect against that, even if they protect against mild -> severe disease. This displays a fundamental failure to understand basic immunuology and biological principles. And it was, of course, very wrong.

Berenson has not been forecasting inasmuch as he has been deliberately misinterpreting real-time data to paint either a minimizing picture of COVID or to fearmonger vaccines.

Both of these are wildly inaccurate reads on the current state of things.

Did he have some more reasoned takes over the last 18th months, I'm sure! But they were all in service of his gigantic contrarian grift. I have plenty of room in my online-sphere for contrarian takes but Berenson has not been right about ONE major event thus far. He deserves practically no respect in these fields.

Take someone like Zeynep Tufekci if you want a non-expect with a track record of good analysis that often goes against the prevailing expert wisdom.

Lastly, Berenson, and all the other fearmongers on this board are vastly overstating the 'waning' of the vaccines against COVID. Even the usually-hysterical NYT was running a piece on this today. Add this to the endless list of his terrible analyses.

l[/quote]

Good post. I'll check out Zeynep Tufekci.

I found Berenson's "the virus is going to virus" talk of the first year to be interesting. The vaccine stuff was a big surprise. I thnk far too many people are contrarians all the time. I'm naturally skeptical of the establishment but am smart enough to realize the establishment is often right (and wrong).

That's what drives me nuts about politics. People on both sides of the aisles are dumb to think "govt" or "freedom" is the answer to every problem. The left or right is never always right or wrong. Sometimes, we need more state intervention. Sometimes less.

I do think questioning the narrative is useful. Particularly when it's coming from big pharma. I mean the idea that we are already agreeing to get a 3rd booster shot when we don' tknow if that's needed is kind of crazy. I was already to get one until you posted that NY Times article.

Thanks.

I agree on questioning the narrative wherever it comes from. My red flag with people like Berenson is that they seem to disagree with the expert consensus ALWAYS. That's a good way to get readers, but it's an implausible strategy if your goal is being correct.

I agree the 'boring' center is where you're most likely to be right most of the time. I'm not a big fan of unnecessary state intervention, BUT a highly contagious pandemic that kills 650k Americans certainly seems like an ideal case for government coordination, for example.

I do think Berenson is one of the 'softer' high-profile Twitter bans, for the record. He definitely violated their policies, but most big followings that have been axed have been egregiously over the line. I don't think Berenson has made many friends outside the fringe COVID-denier-and-antivaxxer community (he lost a lost of people when he went anti-vax), so I imagine the blowback to be small here. Interesting move from Twitter.

Yeah, people are acting as if Twitter is some sort of public service organization. They are not. They created the platform to make money. Their mission is not to provide some greater public good (despite marketing speak), it's to create value for their shareholders.

The question about whether the content in the tweet in question was accurate is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not Twitter has the right to decide unilaterally to cancel an account for whatever reason they see fit. And as long as they are not violating anti-discrimination laws they do have that right. It doesn't really matter what people might perceive to be "fair" or "good".

Now, there may be questions about companies like FB having monopolistic power to stifle competition, but that is a separate issue.

USA is just like china now

sayyestonepotism wrote:

USA is just like china now

Communist take over of America.

Freedom gone.

You know, for our own good.

bad thing, and misinformation is just a smoke screen to suspend debate of facts.

Good take here and kudos for the bolded parts.

Berenson is an idiot but the free speech thing is an elephant (no pun intended) in the room for both the right and left.

I respect this take.

I am pro-mask and have no issues with masks for the short term, rojo, but the scary thing is this: Every fall the media and big tech, big pharm and big medical will scare everyone into "cases rising" each year, and we'll have shutdowns of life each fall.

At least we'll be lucky to have our springs-summers like they were in 2019 and before. The long game concerns me more than any anti- or pro-vax argument or even wearing masks for a period.

colorunner123 wrote:

I view it as a bad thing. I don't think it's healthy for democracy for a small handful to decide what we can and can't discuss on the Internet.

Totally agree. A small handful of America haters and Taliban lovers deciding to not allow freedom of speech, especially when that speech is truthfully pointing out the sub-childish ability of certain dubyaers to spell or use English grammar correctly.

It is easier to discuss anything with like-minded people that it has ever been on the history of this planet.

more patriotic than you wrote:

Lead Foil Hat XXVII wrote:

Nope, it is public:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/twtr/

LOL the first amendment is about the government not restricting freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with companies.

My vote is hell yeah a company can kick someone off their platform for spreading disinformation. They can kick anyone off their platform for almost any reason. If you don't like it go to another social media platform.

Exactly. It’s amazing how many people think the first amendment imputes an obligation to private actors (such as a public company).