Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2023-05-29 01:54:16 UTC - NOT_MISLEADING

The use of intubation has not been shown to be beneficial in treating Covid 19 cases. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q=Covid+intubation+avoidance&hl=en&as_sdt=0,39#d=gs_qabs&t=1685324801392&u=%23p%3D-FLNXgIWA8MJ The details of the impact of intubation are still being studied- the tweet expresses one point of view NNN

Written by 38EC3DEAEAE584D4C0FE5C0B69A4D6246AC41C8D994DBE03DEC78DA88ED0519B
Participant Details

Original Tweet

Tweet embedding is no longer reliably available, due to the platform's instability (in terms of both technology and policy). If the Tweet still exists, you can view it here: https://twitter.com/foo_bar/status/1662136877464563713

Please note, though, that you may need to have your own Twitter account to access that page. I am currently exploring options for archiving Tweet data in a post-API context.

All Information

  • ID - 1663000774639595520
  • noteId - 1663000774639595520
  • participantId -
  • noteAuthorParticipantId - 38EC3DEAEAE584D4C0FE5C0B69A4D6246AC41C8D994DBE03DEC78DA88ED0519B Participant Details
  • createdAtMillis - 1685325256391
  • tweetId - 1662136877464563713
  • classification - NOT_MISLEADING
  • believable -
  • harmful -
  • validationDifficulty -
  • misleadingOther - 0
  • misleadingFactualError - 0
  • misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
  • misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
  • misleadingMissingImportantContext - 0
  • misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 0
  • misleadingSatire - 0
  • notMisleadingOther - 0
  • notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
  • notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
  • notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
  • notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 1
  • trustworthySources - 1
  • summary
    • The use of intubation has not been shown to be beneficial in treating Covid 19 cases. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q=Covid+intubation+avoidance&hl=en&as_sdt=0,39#d=gs_qabs&t=1685324801392&u=%23p%3D-FLNXgIWA8MJ The details of the impact of intubation are still being studied- the tweet expresses one point of view NNN

Note Status History

createdAt timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus firstNonNMRStatus timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus currentStatus timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus mostRecentNonNMRStatus participantId
2023-05-29 01:54:16 UTC
(1685325256391)
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)
2023-05-31 02:39:52 UTC
(1685500792003)
NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS 1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)

Note Ratings

rated at rated by
2023-05-30 17:09:19 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-30 12:54:40 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-30 11:17:58 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-30 09:23:04 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-30 01:19:33 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-30 01:00:17 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-29 20:00:27 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-29 19:06:37 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-29 12:43:57 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-29 12:33:18 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-29 12:25:34 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-29 09:50:51 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-29 04:30:24 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-29 02:52:59 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-29 00:48:51 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 23:08:38 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 21:50:18 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 21:34:16 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 21:25:05 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 21:15:30 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-31 12:11:09 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-31 09:49:56 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-31 07:28:00 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-31 06:07:16 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-31 04:55:09 -0500 Rating Details
2023-06-02 00:59:53 -0500 Rating Details
2023-06-04 07:16:10 -0500 Rating Details
2023-06-07 01:40:52 -0500 Rating Details
2023-06-18 13:32:26 -0500 Rating Details
2023-06-18 11:45:41 -0500 Rating Details
2023-06-23 01:21:58 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-02 22:57:00 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-04 00:21:53 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-06 17:22:48 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-06 00:41:30 -0500 Rating Details
2024-06-03 20:19:37 -0500 Rating Details
2024-06-06 08:27:56 -0500 Rating Details