Birdwatch Note
2024-07-27 19:15:58 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
The Lancet imprimatur is misleading. This was not a peer-reviewed study. It was a letter that suggested a method by which direct and indirect deaths *could* be much higher. https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/07/24/lancet-death-toll-gaza/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1721862427-1
Written by BF07F60282EF7E69054F7C986F0F96D16613F2218CCF5BC85258A5A06F9B8B32
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/1817267298123534526
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 - 1817277769954590772
- noteId - 1817277769954590772
- participantId -
- noteAuthorParticipantId - BF07F60282EF7E69054F7C986F0F96D16613F2218CCF5BC85258A5A06F9B8B32 Participant Details
- createdAtMillis - 1722107758403
- tweetId - 1817267298123534526
- classification - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
- believable -
- harmful -
- validationDifficulty -
- misleadingOther - 0
- misleadingFactualError - 0
- misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
- misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
- misleadingMissingImportantContext - 1
- misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 1
- misleadingSatire - 0
- notMisleadingOther - 0
- notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
- notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
- notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
- notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
- trustworthySources - 1
- summary
- The Lancet imprimatur is misleading. This was not a peer-reviewed study. It was a letter that suggested a method by which direct and indirect deaths *could* be much higher. https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/07/24/lancet-death-toll-gaza/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1721862427-1