I'm happy to state on record that @AllisonPearson has been conducting a months-long hate campaign against public health officials and scientists. THREAD:

1/ Allison claims that the government had been "Captured by tunnel-visioned autistic scientists" [Tweet later deleted]

2/ "It’s time the scientists went back to their labs and hobbit holes and left Earth to the humans."

https://t.co/R6gc4MRZOM
3/ "The swivel-eyed scientist John Edmunds [...] These scientists are not trustworthy."

https://t.co/LeEjSfHvJW
4/ "[...] those shifty government scientists"

https://t.co/oTtVeVtBlA
5/ Deputy CMO Jonathan Van-Tam is "revolting".

https://t.co/9cyJdZcjDZ
6/ CMO Whitty and CSA Vallance should be "locked in a cupboard"

https://t.co/khMt9wiyhw
7/ "Whitty and Vallance should be sacked"

https://t.co/LTvlvq1HWy
https://t.co/4ACQqq0yDP
8/ "Whitty and Co are Martians. They attempt to describe and categorise human existence but they don’t understand it."

https://t.co/DdmOVGQsv7
9/ "[...] the geeks of SAGE regard their lowly lab rats"

https://t.co/m4fhm2AdYe
10/ The Scientific Advisory Group England "need to be purged"

https://t.co/gMFmaFNrdc
11/ "SAGE is a group or upper-middle class Marxists with no idea that most people have to earn a living"

https://t.co/qGRP1teNwg
12/ "Professor John Edmonds is the worst"

https://t.co/siIw9zYlzS
13/ "This scientist looks like he was grown in a mushroom shed [...] obsessive geeks."

https://t.co/lEJDINjmaW
14/ Repeated themes of dehumanising and bullying comments run through Pearson's Telegraph columns, too.

https://t.co/9adv34uOAZ
15/ Whitty, Vallance and SAGE should be "charged with high treason"

https://t.co/Xd6HkNMle8
16/ "Tunnel visioned doomster scientists"

https://t.co/Xd6HkNMle8

More from Government

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?