Three articles are examined here.

In one, the first substantial point is complaining abot Neil DeGrasse Tyson's tweet that 500 people a day die from medical errors: " In the words of Hank Green, the creator of YouTube's SciShow: "It's the kind of potentially damaging statistic a serious science communicator would never share without context.".

First, Tyson is a "serious science communicator" ? Really?

Second, the uncited opinion of a You Tube artiste is supposed to count as critique? It just makes me giggle, but YMMV; you know right off they're not serious.

So forget the celebrity pseudoscience pissing contest, let's look at the actual source of their discontent, namely: "While the number wasn't plucked from thin air, it does have a long and controversial history that is easily searchable. It comes, originally, from a 1999 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, which found up to 98,000 people were dying in US hospitals each year from preventable medical errors."

Right off the bat we can see the target of the attack is a 1999 US National Academy of Science paper, being critiqued on an ad laden website by a naive author ("Previously, she worked at the International Federation of Journalists in Brussels, where she gained the utmost respect for war correspondents. Since then, she has worked in award-winning podcast production, taught a class on science writing at the 2018 March for Science conference, and written multiple YouTube scripts with millions of views.") on an Australian website. What do the denizens of the National Academy of Sciences know anyway? "Carly currently lives in Seattle, where she enjoys clamming, oystering, fern-ing and pretending she knows how to identify birds and stars."

Oystering? Fern-ing. Does she make up facts like she makes up words?

The problem here is the document being critiques by Carly is a press release (and her link ot it ddn't work" and it it not the source of the numbers.

The rest of her article is jsut flippant nonsnse that discusses thigns from other artiucle and has no original thought or data, it's a puff piece. Examples are:

"A 2013 report in the United Kingdom, for example, found that while five percent of deaths in hospitals were deemed to be more than 50 percent preventable, more than half of these occurred in older and sicker patients who weren't likely to live longer than a year."

(So it's ok to screw up, they'd be dead soon anyway)

"A recent and more rigorous study came up with a far more conservative number than either the IOM study or the Hopkins research. Rather than simply looking at 'medical errors', authors of this study examined all adverse events and their link to patient mortality, whether a mistake or not."

We're looking at medical errors. Don't get distracted.

And that's pretty much it for that artiucle, module 15 more pages of clickbait ads.