UPDATE
Tim Pool Discusses this topic at minute 7
Hi Chris,
Thank you for contacting us. The article in question was retracted last night, as it was being used to spread misinformation about the pandemic. We have preserved the article as a PDF and posted an Editor’s Note with full clarification about our decision, highlighting the inaccuracies of the study.
Best,
Marvis & Ariella
Marvis Gutierrez and Ariella Shua
Managing Editors
The Johns Hopkins News-Letter
3400 N. Charles St.
Mattin Center, Suite 131 Baltimore, MD 21218
4:44 AM (10 hours ago) To: [email protected]@[email protected] On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 4:44 AM Chris *** <****> wrote:
Yesterday, I sent out a link to family and friends about a johns hopkins study YOU published suggesting that nominal causes for deaths were reduced by the same amount of increased deaths in 2020 attributable to covid, meaning that covid was being used as an explanation for the nominal numbers of deaths--it was lets call it for now, a 'data error' clusterf*ck in the assumption of an absence of malice.
This link has since disappeared. I WANT TO KNOW WHY and who removed it. > Thank you.
https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19
here it's archived...
I'd like for SN works to give an answer as to why this link was removed on thanksgiving immediately after it was starting to become viral. I will also be asking jhunewsletter.com
Angry reply to their reply after reading their mealy mouth retration-of-no-retraction
Thank you for the explanation. I am curious though. In your clarification, there is no suggestion that the article contains misinformation, but instead suggests people are circulating the article with what you consider to be bad interpretations of the information.
My follow up question is this: who made you the arbiters of truth, to decide what people can and cannot read. I personally think you are NOT arbiters of Truth. I personally think you should only retract things that are untrue, and in fact, it's better you do NOT retract anything but instead provide a corrected version with clarifications. I personally think its acceptable to strike through parts that are misleading and provide clarifications in situ.
I am very appalled by the behavior your blog has shown here. It's censorious and suggests you are a control freak who doesn't trust that other people have rights and a sense of personal agency, and it's insulting to the intelligences of anyone who does NOT misinterpret your article. Behind your misguided sense of control is the idea that people are a monolith, who engage in shallow black and white thinking, and that betrays the most cynical view of human thought I can imagine. PLease consider whether it's more harmful to self-censor based on the belief that "everyone but yourselves are too stupid to read", or to allow a complex topic to reach the masses.
I personally think you are harming the discussion with this behavior. And the risk you are making is that you are making people think Johns Hopkins doesn't have the courage to publish true things, because they can potentially be misleading. This feckless attitude is going to make most people run from your publications and will ultimately push the sterling notoriety of Johns Hopkins into the toilet.
Feel free to disagree. I represent over 80M americans, possibly many more worldwide.
Thanks again for your reply
Hi Chris,
Thank you for contacting us. The article in question was retracted last night, as it was being used to spread misinformation about the pandemic. We have preserved the article as a PDF and posted an Editor’s Note with full clarification about our decision, highlighting the inaccuracies of the study.
Best,
Marvis & Ariella
Marvis Gutierrez and Ariella Shua
Managing Editors
The Johns Hopkins News-Letter
3400 N. Charles St.
Mattin Center, Suite 131 Baltimore, MD 21218
4:44 AM (10 hours ago) To: [email protected]@[email protected] On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 4:44 AM Chris *** <****> wrote:
Yesterday, I sent out a link to family and friends about a johns hopkins study YOU published suggesting that nominal causes for deaths were reduced by the same amount of increased deaths in 2020 attributable to covid, meaning that covid was being used as an explanation for the nominal numbers of deaths--it was lets call it for now, a 'data error' clusterf*ck in the assumption of an absence of malice.
This link has since disappeared. I WANT TO KNOW WHY and who removed it. > Thank you.
https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19
here it's archived...
I'd like for SN works to give an answer as to why this link was removed on thanksgiving immediately after it was starting to become viral. I will also be asking jhunewsletter.com
Angry reply to their reply after reading their mealy mouth retration-of-no-retraction
Thank you for the explanation. I am curious though. In your clarification, there is no suggestion that the article contains misinformation, but instead suggests people are circulating the article with what you consider to be bad interpretations of the information.
My follow up question is this: who made you the arbiters of truth, to decide what people can and cannot read. I personally think you are NOT arbiters of Truth. I personally think you should only retract things that are untrue, and in fact, it's better you do NOT retract anything but instead provide a corrected version with clarifications. I personally think its acceptable to strike through parts that are misleading and provide clarifications in situ.
I am very appalled by the behavior your blog has shown here. It's censorious and suggests you are a control freak who doesn't trust that other people have rights and a sense of personal agency, and it's insulting to the intelligences of anyone who does NOT misinterpret your article. Behind your misguided sense of control is the idea that people are a monolith, who engage in shallow black and white thinking, and that betrays the most cynical view of human thought I can imagine. PLease consider whether it's more harmful to self-censor based on the belief that "everyone but yourselves are too stupid to read", or to allow a complex topic to reach the masses.
I personally think you are harming the discussion with this behavior. And the risk you are making is that you are making people think Johns Hopkins doesn't have the courage to publish true things, because they can potentially be misleading. This feckless attitude is going to make most people run from your publications and will ultimately push the sterling notoriety of Johns Hopkins into the toilet.
Feel free to disagree. I represent over 80M americans, possibly many more worldwide.
Thanks again for your reply
Hi Chris,
Thank you for contacting us. The article in question was retracted last night, as it was being used to spread misinformation about the pandemic. We have preserved the article as a PDF and posted an Editor’s Note with full clarification about our decision, highlighting the inaccuracies of the study.
Best,
Marvis & Ariella
Marvis Gutierrez and Ariella Shua
Managing Editors
The Johns Hopkins News-Letter
3400 N. Charles St.
Mattin Center, Suite 131 Baltimore, MD 21218
4:44 AM (10 hours ago) To: [email protected]@[email protected] On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 4:44 AM Chris *** <****> wrote:
Yesterday, I sent out a link to family and friends about a johns hopkins study YOU published suggesting that nominal causes for deaths were reduced by the same amount of increased deaths in 2020 attributable to covid, meaning that covid was being used as an explanation for the nominal numbers of deaths--it was lets call it for now, a 'data error' clusterf*ck in the assumption of an absence of malice.
This link has since disappeared. I WANT TO KNOW WHY and who removed it. > Thank you.
https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19
here it's archived...
I'd like for SN works to give an answer as to why this link was removed on thanksgiving immediately after it was starting to become viral. I will also be asking jhunewsletter.com