Eric Feigl-Ding on Twitter
twitter.com
⚠️Scoop—MOTHER OF GOD—Just got this leak from CDC-insider source—it seems #COVID variants worse than CDC has been admitting. The new highly evasive #BQ1 & #BQ11 sub variants are surging over 11%—but CDC has not shared it yet! Here is what will be posted soon (left) 🆚 current. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/BKyBgZwe86— Eric Feigl-Ding (@DrEricDing) October 14, 2022

Feel weird sharing a twitter post, but this guy has credentials. Fucking hate the CDC.

Sorry I've been posting a lot about covid lately, I'm immunocompromised and people ignoring covid has been driving me insane.

EDIT: here's a new source confirming this https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-variant-bq-1-omicron-cdc-estimates/

  • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
    ·
    2 years ago

    [Eric Feigl-Ding] has credentials.

    He's a terrible source, a sensationalist, and his tweets should never be shared. I'm not a doctor or a scientist so I have no way of interpreting data myself.

    But I will die on the hill that he should never be trusted. I think it's best to entirely ignore him. But if he tweets something and you (read "anybody") wants to share it - google it. Find another source that can be trusted. In the quotation that follows the money quote comes at the end and I'll repeat it here: "His tweets during the pandemic have also at times been criticized by other scientists as alarmist, misleading, or inaccurate."

    Eric Feigl-Ding

    Controversies concerning epidemiological expertise and accuracy

    Feigl-Ding holds doctorates in both epidemiology and nutrition, with his professional experience in nutritional epidemiology and epidemiology of chronic disease. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, his research work and expertise primarily focused on the health effects of diet and exercise, he also lacked academic publication in infectious disease epidemiology, the subfield of epidemiology most relevant to viral outbreaks and COVID-19.

    Because of this, Feigl-Ding has been criticized for misrepresenting his qualifications to offer media commentary on the COVID-19 pandemic. Feigl-Ding has disclosed he is not sub-specialized in infectious diseases and claims to have never misrepresented himself as an infectious disease epidemiologist.

    Feigl-Ding's rapid rise to prominence as a TV and media commentator and expert during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite his lack of academic activity in infectious diseases, has led to much criticism and controversy. He received early criticism for offering public warnings on the COVID-19 pandemic as well as praise from David Wallace-Wells, editor-at-large at New York Magazine.

    A January 2020 article published by The Atlantic covered the early controversy of Feigl-Ding's social media presence. On March 26, Alexis Madrigal, its author, re-assessed his piece and stated that "it was right in the particulars and wrong on the big picture." While Feigl-Ding admits he has made mistakes, one of his supporters, Ali Nouri, the president of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), a scientific think tank dedicated to science communication, attributed some of the criticism of Feigl-Ding down to stylistic differences in information dissemination.

    His tweets during the pandemic have also at times been criticized by other scientists as alarmist, misleading, or inaccurate.

    • macabrett
      ·
      2 years ago

      That's a fair assessment, but uhhh this is just a tweet about rising variants that the CDC isn't appropriately warning us about (that were already marked for concern previously). He might not be untrustworthy for opinions, but this is just... numbers. Are there instances of him falsifying data?

      • GorbinOutOverHere [comrade/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Idk what these people are on about saying this guy sucks, seems like back to brunch Trust the CDC lib shit to me

        • macabrett
          ·
          2 years ago

          hey would you guess the twitter post was right

          https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-variant-bq-1-omicron-cdc-estimates/

      • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
        ·
        2 years ago

        He's sensationalist, alarmist, misleading, and inaccurate. He is not to be trusted.

        You made me look at the next tweet and now I wish I hadn't....

        2) I cannot describe just how mad I am at this disaster. #BQ1 and #BQ11 are two of the most evasive variants known to date. And CDC seems to have been holding onto this data? Can it be true? Why did this data have to leak to me from insider sources? It’s so bad.

        Okay, I'll parse it.

        I cannot describe just how mad I am at this disaster.

        Is that a huge lie? He's going to get mad likes! He is not to be trusted.

        #BQ1 and #BQ11 are two of the most evasive variants known to date.

        How accurate is that statement. He is not to be trusted.

        And CDC seems to have been holding onto this data?

        How true is that? He is not to be trusted.

        Can it be true?

        That's a hedge. Why did he hedge, eh?

        Why did this data have to leak to me from insider sources?

        What am i looking at exactly? He is not to be trusted.

        It’s so bad.

        Mad likes! He is not to be trusted.

        Must I do this for all other tweets? There are seven more. I said I will die on this hill. And damn the fucking torpedeos - I will! Is that really what you want?

        • GorbinOutOverHere [comrade/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          🙄 he's literally been right to voice concern over everything I've seen him voice concern over but I guess it's sensationalist to express outrage over what is clearly a slow moving train wreck of a pandemic response unless it develops ebola-like mortality overnight

          • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
            ·
            2 years ago

            he’s literally been right to voice concern over everything I’ve seen him voice concern over

            Well, there's no way for me to error check what's happening in your mind. Still it's worth remembering that he’s sensationalist, alarmist, misleading, and inaccurate. And he is not to be trusted.

            The OP didn't take me up my offer to parse the other seven tweets. To be honest I do not I want to slog through the other seven tweets for you. You seem to want to try to prove something to me about him but I have no idea what you're ranting about. He's garbage.

                • GorbinOutOverHere [comrade/them]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Ditto, shit reads like climate denialism, "someone is talking about climate apocalypse? What an alarmist sensationalist nerd, the ice caps are still here, they are not to be trusted"

                  Disengaging now frienderino

                • macabrett
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-variant-bq-1-omicron-cdc-estimates/

            • macabrett
              ·
              2 years ago

              https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-variant-bq-1-omicron-cdc-estimates/

        • macabrett
          ·
          2 years ago

          https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-variant-bq-1-omicron-cdc-estimates/

    • D3FNC [any]
      ·
      2 years ago

      This is the dumbest critique I have ever read. Gee, I wonder if anyone's opinion of how bad covid was going to be changed after MARCH 2020.

      JFC. The man is a modern day Cassandra. He called it, he has called every step of this pandemic, and the only people still doubting him are antivax antimaskers.

      • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
        ·
        2 years ago

        His tweets during the pandemic have also at times been criticized by other scientists as alarmist, misleading, or inaccurate.

        JFC - this thread is into into a moronic reddit-level shitpile.

        the only people still doubting him are antivax antimaskers.

        Are you even reading anything at all??? I didn't write the following - Wikipedia did...

        His tweets during the pandemic have also at times been criticized by other scientists as alarmist, misleading, or inaccurate.

        • D3FNC [any]
          ·
          2 years ago

          I don't need to read the Wikipedia article. I'm an actual topic expert. I've read nearly everything published on this subject for the past several years. I have a doctoral degree in the subject. I was there, I watched my patients die from a virus nobody understood. My opinions are formed.

          I don't really care what the other nine nameless establishment dentists think, much less some dude quoting the CDC, an organization in which I lost faith in during the ebola crisis, another event I was literally there for to personally witness their clueless mismanagement.

          For someone throwing around reddit arguments as an insult - do you even understand who writes these Wikipedia articles you find so authoritative? There are no experts on Wikipedia, only incels, feds, and bots.

          • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
            ·
            2 years ago

            I’m an actual topic expert.

            Oh, yeah. This is proof!...

            This is the dumbest critique I have ever read.

            I can see you do a lot of "reading".

            I have a doctoral degree in the subject.

            Good for you. If you're actually read anything I've written - you know I didn't claim to be knowledgeable at all on the subject. Why don't you go to reddit and leave me out of your ranting drama?

            Feigl-Ding is garbage. It's very sad you cannot understand that despite your doctoral degree. I don't know why you're in this sub-thread lecturing me that garbage is good. Because - I dunno... Reasons.

            the other nine nameless establishment dentists think, much less some dude quoting the CDC

            I don't even understand what you're saying.

            Just be your own expert and leave me out of it please!

            • macabrett
              ·
              2 years ago

              https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-variant-bq-1-omicron-cdc-estimates/

    • macabrett
      ·
      2 years ago

      okay here

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-variant-bq-1-omicron-cdc-estimates/

      • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Wow. Very clever to repeat yourself over and over and over again. You seem to have entirely missed the point. But I'll only l remind you of it again once....

        His tweets during the pandemic have also at times been criticized by other scientists as alarmist, misleading, or inaccurate.

        Note the "at times". And I do not have some kind of highly parasocial relationship to Eric Feigl-Ding. In fact - I have no parasocial relationship with him at all. He's a garbage tweeter who shares sensationalism. But that's not usual for social media. There are is no shortage of hustlers on the net just like him who are building their brands. I dislike him because he's tweeting covid sensationalism for his own benefit during a pandemic of a deadly disease. Fine, I'll admit to disliking him. Call it a "win" if you want.

        At a future date (next week, maybe?) - if you insist on linking to Feigl-Ding again - we will do this dance again. We will do this every time - if it's what you want. Over and over. It's not what I want. I'm not looking for some sort of showdown. I just don't want sensationalist covid (or medical) crap at Hexbear.

        Linking to sensationalistic medical info is bad. Sorry, but that's always going to be true.

        • macabrett
          ·
          2 years ago

          Why are you like this lmao

            • macabrett
              ·
              2 years ago

              but it wasn't, it was real

              • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
                ·
                2 years ago

                Sorry. You are wrong. It was 100% sensationalistic.

                sensationalism <noun> 1 (especially in journalism) the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement.