I know what she claims to be. But she has admitted to the Daily Beast (in an interview) that she's not actually certified to be in the field that she's in. She works in the field, but any implication that she's considered an expert in the field BY THE FIELD ITSELF is nonsense. That's literally the point of being certified, so that you can legitimately claim expertise as verified by other experts.
Which, I know, probably doesn't make much of an impact with you, because you tend to believe that the entire field of science convalesces against the Truth.
But at the end of the day, she's claiming to be an expert because she thinks she is one, not because anyone qualified does.
Sure, she's been called to testify on the subject matter, but that's not surprising if the people calling for her are desperately looking for an expert to justify their views, and she's the only one who has a fake enough ID to get through the door.
The affidavits she's provided have been removed from the resources of the anti-vax and anti-mask groups she's testified for. She has misrepresented studies in ways that even she couldn't reconcile when asked about (specifically with regards to N95 masks).
I can disagree with her, but that doesn't mean anything as long as you believe she's an expert. And at BEST, her claims to expertise are contested by everyone else in the same field. She does not have the support of other experts in her claim to be an expert.
Which isn't uncommon for the anti-vax, anti-mask side of the aisle. You have a speckled array of self-claimed experts who are elevated to celebrity status for being willing to stand against The Narrative, but almost every single one of them, upon investigation, is still standing far outside of the area that we would typically reserve for experts on the subject they're talking about.
And again, I know that from your perspective, that's just because somehow the Cabal has infiltrated this field (along with pretty much every other field that could support your narrative) and that Ms. Kelly is the single brave soul resisting them. But her not being fired from a field doesn't exactly lend any credibility to her being an actual expert in this field.
Experts have verifiable credentials, and she's decided she doesn't want credentials that can be verified. Which is always suspicious to people who verify their information before trusting it.
I am relaying the information she willingly provided to an outlet who then reported it. You can choose to disbelieve it if you want, but unless you personally know the woman, you can't really disagree on using the internet in order to acquire information.
And I'm fairly certain you know exactly what the words I will use to contest her opinion would be. I do not see her as an expert in the field, nor does anyone else in the field.
You do see her as an expert in the field. And as long as you do, then nothing I say is going to overcome her allegedly expert testimony.
Which is why I'm focusing on establishing her credentials. Because the strength of her testimony exists purely on her credentials, which is why she makes such a big deal about it. And if those don't exist, or at least aren't nearly as strong as she implies, then the expert opinions of actual experts will trump the opinions of someone like her to anyone looking at this issue empirically.
It would be nice if there was a link to the regulation/standard thing she rattled off
I know what she claims to be. But she has admitted to the Daily Beast (in an interview) that she's not actually certified to be in the field that she's in. She works in the field, but any implication that she's considered an expert in the field BY THE FIELD ITSELF is nonsense. That's literally the point of being certified, so that you can legitimately claim expertise as verified by other experts.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/meet-the-anti-mask-michigan-scientist-stoking-the-fourth-wave?ref=scroll
Which, I know, probably doesn't make much of an impact with you, because you tend to believe that the entire field of science convalesces against the Truth.
But at the end of the day, she's claiming to be an expert because she thinks she is one, not because anyone qualified does.
Sure, she's been called to testify on the subject matter, but that's not surprising if the people calling for her are desperately looking for an expert to justify their views, and she's the only one who has a fake enough ID to get through the door.
The affidavits she's provided have been removed from the resources of the anti-vax and anti-mask groups she's testified for. She has misrepresented studies in ways that even she couldn't reconcile when asked about (specifically with regards to N95 masks).
I can disagree with her, but that doesn't mean anything as long as you believe she's an expert. And at BEST, her claims to expertise are contested by everyone else in the same field. She does not have the support of other experts in her claim to be an expert.
Which isn't uncommon for the anti-vax, anti-mask side of the aisle. You have a speckled array of self-claimed experts who are elevated to celebrity status for being willing to stand against The Narrative, but almost every single one of them, upon investigation, is still standing far outside of the area that we would typically reserve for experts on the subject they're talking about.
And again, I know that from your perspective, that's just because somehow the Cabal has infiltrated this field (along with pretty much every other field that could support your narrative) and that Ms. Kelly is the single brave soul resisting them. But her not being fired from a field doesn't exactly lend any credibility to her being an actual expert in this field.
Experts have verifiable credentials, and she's decided she doesn't want credentials that can be verified. Which is always suspicious to people who verify their information before trusting it.
How did you find this article?
Did you use an internet source? Because so did I.
I am relaying the information she willingly provided to an outlet who then reported it. You can choose to disbelieve it if you want, but unless you personally know the woman, you can't really disagree on using the internet in order to acquire information.
And I'm fairly certain you know exactly what the words I will use to contest her opinion would be. I do not see her as an expert in the field, nor does anyone else in the field.
You do see her as an expert in the field. And as long as you do, then nothing I say is going to overcome her allegedly expert testimony.
Which is why I'm focusing on establishing her credentials. Because the strength of her testimony exists purely on her credentials, which is why she makes such a big deal about it. And if those don't exist, or at least aren't nearly as strong as she implies, then the expert opinions of actual experts will trump the opinions of someone like her to anyone looking at this issue empirically.