Where did I defend Trump's tweets? Where did I say it was OK for him to give false and misleading medical advice? Obviously he should NOT. HAVE. DONE. THOSE. THINGS. I think you're wearing your bias on your sleeve a bit too much. I get it, you hate him too. That's fine. But it's blinding you just like it did whoever let this garbage pass muster.
Just because Trump does a thing that is despicable doesn't mean we give everyone else a pass too.
Where did I defend the Lancet? Where did I say it was OK for them to publish that paper? Obviously they should NOT. HAVE. DONE. THAT.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea -- literally everything you wrote can be flipped right around, which is why you need to consider whether or not your own sleeve is maybe a little decorated.
Seriously: I agree with you. I'm pointing out, however, that you're jumping in to claim "bias" by the "media" in a context where the "other side" very clearly already had blood on its hands over the same issue. And treating one side and not the other is helping no one.
"It's possible that the editors at the Lancet hate Trump. But... you're simply reading too much here. Bad science gets published all the time. In particular, bad science gets published in circumstances like we have now where there is desperate need for 'fast science'"
Just because Trump does a thing that is despicable doesn't mean we give everyone else a pass too.