Proponents of a lab origin of the Covid-19 pandemic often claim that circumstantial evidence is in favor of their hypothesis... while ignoring key circumstantial evidence *against* it.
Some examples in this thread: ▫️1/🧵
@stkirsch
"MIT" didn't invite you to anything. You were invited to give a talk by a an antivax student group that was formed FOUR DAYS AGO and whose only activity has been to invite three antivaxxers to speak.
@MuellerSheWrote
@your_pal_chris
But can he determine that they are government documents and not subject to possessory claims by Trump by the simple that they are marked as classified and thus produced by the government?
Two 2022
@CureusInc
papers were hailed by some as the most overwhelming positive results from observational studies of ivermectin for Covid-19.
We show that the results from both studies can be entirely explained by untreated statistical artefacts 🧵1/
We've updated our preprint re-analyzing the data from two 2022
@CureusInc
papers hailed by some as the most overwhelming positive results from observational studies of ivermectin for Covid-19. Spoiler alert: our results are unchanged.
🧵1/
This is certainly *not* a bombshell, but it provides a good way of telling whether someone has any idea how the NIH works with intellectual property (in the quoted tweet, the answer to that question is "no".) A short explainer: 🧵1/
Forgot my mask when taking out the trash. I only realised at the lift lobby when I saw a masked
@PizzaHut_SG
delivery guy. He saw my shock, immediately pulled out a small bag full of masks and offered me one. Thank you, kind stranger.
David Brooks complains that the
#resistance
is "lowering its standards" and then notes that WH visitors find that Trump "seems well-informed enough to get by". 🤔
Who is lowering their standards again,
@nytdavidbrooks
?
Just watched a dangerously misleading video from
@Johnincarlisle
casting suspicion on the
@ONS
for their updated methodology for excess deaths calculation. Dr. Campbell says "this needs a better explanation, in my view, than posting *that* on the web site" (page full of maths) 1/
The ODNI declassification makes clear that the Oct/Nov 222
@VanityFair
/
@propublica
report by
@KatherineEban
and
@jeffykao
, in addition to relying on amateurish and flawed translations by a self-proclaimed CCP-whisperer, was also wrong about pretty much everything else.
@SarahBCalif
@JacobAWohl
I was in a taxi in Singapore today, and the driver asked where I was from. I said the US, and he asked me if I had heard that Trump was trying to help the Saudis cover up the Khashoggi muder. "He has no principles" the Singaporean taxi driver said of Trump.
But
@Johnincarlisle
has gathered the few (the only!) equations scattered through a 27-page document and pasted them together on a single page with no explanation or context. Dr. Campbell, in all seriousness: how can you call yourself an educator? This is outright deception. 5/
In the last day *alone*, you've hyped false allegations against
@acritschristoph
et al, repeated and amplified falsehoods about a table in their paper, hyped absolute *nonsense* about genomic DNA depletion, and made (and deleted) false accusations against
@angie_rasmussen
These reporters were misled by the scientists they counted on for an insight.
As a scientific consultant, I feel a deep responsibility to not mislead people by overhyping findings or ignoring critical information that contradicts my own theory.
Absolutely terrible form.
The Lab Leak Hypothesis™ isn't coherent or self-consistent enough to be described as a conspiracy theory. It's not one hypothesis, or one theory. It's a flexible collection of (often mutually incompatible) explanations that share support for a lab leak. 1/2🧵
Hi folks, I've been brought back from my
@YouTube
hiatus by
@Johnincarlisle
's misinformation-palooza on Covid vaccination and multiple sclerosis. My video will premiere tonight 9PM Singapore time, 9AM EDT, and 2PM in Carlisle, UK.
@AJDelgado13
@elonmusk
Somehow they voted 96% for Russia when they had just been invaded by Russa, even though they had voted 54% to be part of an independent Ukraine in 1991🧐🤔
Has anyone tried to define something like "Elon's Razor" to describe the flood of harebrained/poisonous Bright Ideas this clown keeps coming up with to destroy Twitter?
@joshtpm
@scalzi
Those people deserve better than Dr. Campbell's (
@Johnincarlisle
's) scorn. Dr. Campbell, if you want to learn about the changes in ONS methodology, read what the ONS provided. Ask someone more numerate to tutor you (I would be willing). But don't blame the
@ONS
for your ignorance
I have a video out addressing some really vile manipulation and minimisation of Covid-19 deaths by Dr. John Campbell (
@Johnincarlisle
), a YouTube personality in the UK with over 2 million followers 1/9
@Johnincarlisle
Hi Dr. Campbell, thank you for removing your false and misleading video about death rates in vaccinated versus un-vaccinated. Assuming that's because you recognised that it was dangerously incorrect, will you make a video correcting the mistake?
It's also gratuitously insulting of Dr. Campbell to the career analysts and statisticians working with the ONS. These people are not political operatives; they are technical specialists who dedicate their careers to the accuracy of often mundane estimates. 6/
Regarding these five "facts":
- Four are true but have absolutely nothing to do with Covid.
- The fifth is false and misleading (but is the only one related to Covid).
A typical smokescreen
5 Quick Facts About Ivermectin: Public Enemy
#1
#5
- Its discovery won the Nobel Prize in 2015.
#4
- Included in the World Health Organization's essential list of medicines.
#3
- Has safely cured people of river blindness in 33 countries for decades.
#2
- Over 3.7 billion
But Dr. Campbell's implication is entirely bunk. I'm sorry to hear,
@Johnincarlisle
, that the equations are beyond you. That's why the ONS provided a lengthy, accessible, written English language explanation of the changes. When I print it on A4 paper, it runs 27 pages. 3/
The ceaseless demonization of
@PeterHotez
and others has been, I believe, driven by a combination of fear and proportionality bias: people find it hard to accept that a global calamity like Covid could have a mundane origin. People need a villain.
So silly, together our team of scientists make low-cost patent-free vaccines for low- and middle-income countries. The ones big pharma would never make - we're making vaccines for hookworm, Chagas disease. There's no "blood money", in fact there's "no money" hence our struggles.
Here is the link to the ONS page discussing the changes. 27 pages printed on A4, 19 pages when downloaded as a PDF (for which they've set a smaller font).
The Lancet Commission Report's treatment of Covid origins is the opposite of what it pretends to be: it calls for inquiry, but actively contributes to disinformation.
The
@Commissioncovid
report ironically COVERS UP inquiry into Covid origins 1/10
The lancet commission report is excellent in so many ways, but the lab leak / origins section is problematic - ignoring so much recent evidence.
However - don't let that stop you from reading and digesting the report as a whole which is so good!
Request for help: I've devoted my
@YouTube
channel to fighting misinformation, but YouTube wrongly removed a video of mine (and rejected the appeal in less time than it would take to view the video itself) claiming it was *promoting* medical misinformation.
@TeamYouTube
1/3
Is Fauci getting rich from Covid-related royalties? Almost surely not. Fauci is an inventor on eight issued patents, the most recent of which is 18 years old, for development of HIV-1 gp120 / integrin interaction antagonists. 5/
This hit piece misrepresents our study completely, but there's an additional irony in the accusation that we inflated deaths, because
@PierreKory
and
@FlavioCadegiani
's original studies neglected to count over *half* of the relevant hospitalisations in the public record 1/
The war on ivermectin continues. Latest attack is a brazen attempt to counter our profoundly positive Itajai study (largest study of ivermectin to date). To do this, Pharma boy Greg Tucker Kellogg literally doubled the actual amount of deaths observed
Some people in replies have been wondering why the ONS changed their method of estimating expected deaths. The short answer is that the pandemic *itself* led to inaccuracy when using their previous (simpler) method. A short 🧵 1/
Just watched a dangerously misleading video from
@Johnincarlisle
casting suspicion on the
@ONS
for their updated methodology for excess deaths calculation. Dr. Campbell says "this needs a better explanation, in my view, than posting *that* on the web site" (page full of maths) 1/
I am devastated beyond measure by the loss of my wonderful sister, Louise Kellogg
@louisekellogg
. She was a brilliant scientist and the best sister I could have wished for.
I was delighted to sit down for a discussion with Iakov Efimenko
@AesBrah
, first author of the conference abstract on Ivermectin and Covid-19 that has been misrepresented by
@PierreKory
,
@Johnincarlisle
,
@jordanbpeterson
and others.
No wonder biotech lags behind software tech
Biotech people have PhDs who prefer fancy over actual solutions
Software can’t take over biotech soon enough
The NIH could, of course, give away all of its intellectual property without licensing, but since a ubiquitous accusation against Big Pharma is that it profits for free from government research it didn't conduct, at least charging a fee recoups some of what pharma takes 3/
Excellent piece by
@gorskon
on the dangerous consequences of
@VPrasadMDMPH
's methodolatry in medical education
Evidence-based medicine vs. basic science in medical school | Science-Based Medicine via
@sciencebasedmed
Very nice. My only quibble is calling
@BretWeinstein
a biologist. He *was* a biologist once, but he's not one now, and he's done virtually no primary research in any field, including biology.
Over 6 months ago, biologist
@BretWeinstein
released a video calling for corrections to inaccuracies. Responding, molecular biologist
@debunk_the_funk
, with the aid of 3 immunologists, provided insights. Supported by biologist
@JoomiKim1
and technology analyst
@JBSay
, a response.
.
@Johnincarlisle
continues, dripping with sarcasm, "See, this is obviously done by really clever people, isn't it. The role of us morons is just to accept whatever they say". He ends, re:
@ONS
communication, "I find it concerning and look forward to further clarification" 2/
Some of the licensing fee go to the government, some goes to the inventors. As inventors, they would be handsomely rewarded in private industry, but the government would like to keep them in public service, so royalties for licensed inventions are a thing. This is good! 4/
@tKT2T2n81J4uCBJ
I'm not sure what the argument is between you and
@alo3677
, but the update of our preprint only strengthens the argument that the Cadegiani et al Itajai studies are worthless. The entire "benefit" they claim from ivermectin is an artefact of their flawed design and analysis.
National hero or not,
@PeterHotez
certainly lives rent-free in Bryce Nickels's head. My theory: Hotez doesn't express any regret about funding "research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that likely contributed to the COVID-19 pandemic" because he's confident that he didn't.
The two largest equations are the statistical models per week (on p 4) and per month (p 5) along with a few one-liners on pages 7 and 8. (Page numbers refer to my printout). The meaning of each equation is described, in detail, in the surrounding text. 27 pages! 4/
Why are NIH scientists getting royalties from pharma companies? Because they, as researchers, make inventions or discoveries that the NIH licenses to pharma companies. The NIH can't keep its discoveries as trade secrets, so what gets licensed is only what gets patented. 2/
@SalenaZito
So I *have* read
#theGreatRevolt
, in which you, do, in fact, mention that Amy Giles-Maurer is a Republican. But you never, ever mention that she's a Republican Party official.
If you've gotten this far, it's worth nothing that Kerr, Cadegiani, et al is a demonstrable object lesson in bad study design, and that every one of the biases in the design leads to fictitious benefit for ivermectin users () 15/
The existence of licensing payments for intellectual property invented by NIH employees is not, in my opinion, corrupt. Quite the opposite; it helps prevent corruption by rewarding inventors. If you want to claim it *is* corrupt, it's on you to specify why and how. 7/7
The results from both original studies (Kerr, Cadegiani, et al, and Kerr, Baldi et al 2022 ) are entirely explained by untreated statistical artefacts.
This update corrects a numerical error in the earlier manuscript but has no effect on the conclusions of our analysis 2/
🚨🚨READERS OF GAO ET AL 🚨🚨
"...and human nucleic acid was removed using an enrichment kit to improve the sensitivity of viral RNA detection."
This is almost surely generic gDNA depletion. Nobody's doing hsDNA subtractive hybridisation on environmental swab samples for NGS.
@Johnincarlisle
@YouTube
Dr. Campbell, correlation is not causation. Did it occur to you that those with more doses were at greater risk? It doesn't seem to have occurred to the authors
So what can we say? First, Kerr, Cadegiani et al, included a large number of non-users who were hospitalised BEFORE THE STUDY BEGAN. The bias was even worse when looking at those who died. 5/
The Covid Crank Magnet in action! I doubt Kory has looked seriously at Covid origins one way or another, but he'll ally with lab leakers and smear
@PeterHotez
if it helps him keep his ivermectin grift going.
So there we have it. Once again, I'm grateful to Robin Mills and
@AnaCarolPecanha
for their work on this in the face of false and defamatory accusations against each of us. If mistakes remain, we will gladly correct them.
BREAKING NEWS
The 2023
#NobelPrize
in Physiology or Medicine has been awarded to Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman for their discoveries concerning nucleoside base modifications that enabled the development of effective mRNA vaccines against COVID-19.
Daniel's calculations were used over his own objections by
@FlavioCadegiani
,
@PierreKory
, and their associates to falsely accuse us of fraud.
Those libelous accusations were a smokescreen, as those who've actually read our preprint would know. 4/
Just watched
@Johnincarlisle
latest video, which is both paranoid about and proudly ignorant of
#DigitalHealth
. Dr. Campbell seems pleased not to have heard of Digital Health before a few days ago, makes some awkward Orwellian comparisons, and apparently learned nothing.
@Johnincarlisle
@YouTube
Dr. Campbell, this is a completely and fundamentally flawed analysis, getting the base rate entirely wrong. Others (
@DrSusanOliver1
and
@UncleJo46902375
among them) have covered the issues, but come on. This is data analysis 101.
About the new findings (shown at SAGO meeting on Tuesday) from analysis of environmental sequencing data at Wuhan HSM. What can we say from news reports of a presentation at a meeting we didn't attend? ("We" here being most of us). Not as much as we'd like, but not nothing 🧵
@DineshDSouza
Tough call! The guy who boxed for charity, or the guy who needed his dad to find a doctor so that he could get a fake diagnosis to avoid military service. 🤔🧐
While these two biases are extensively covered in any clinical study design course, they were missed by Kerr, Cadegiani, Kory, co-authors, so we prepared this handy visual guide to the biases in their studies 9/
As a side note, that HIV-1 gp120 antagonists are being studied as investigational compounds in current clinical trials, so it's possible Fauci is getting some royalties from companies that license that patent. That seems appropriate. 6/
We are grateful to Daniel Victor Tausk, who suggested more precise filtering methods for matching records between the Brazil Health Ministry and supplemental data from
@FlavioCadegiani
. Daniel maintained his professionalism in emails even as 3/
This is an interesting example of how misinformation spreads and also how propagandists like
@KimIversenShow
use misleading wording to skate right up to the line. A 🧵1/10
Welp.
@youtube
hit me for talking about the UVA Health beginning a study of Ivermectin. Because somehow reporting on a major health organization saying they saw some benefit from the drug and want to study further is “misinformation”. No uploading for a week.
@BretWeinstein
@PierreKory
Hi
@BretWeinstein
! I do apologise for my foolishness and error regarding the FDA label. That was quite dumb of me. But yes
@PierreKory
was lying (and you were wrong) when you talked about how nobody had heard of a weight limit to ivermectin dosing.
As a consequence of the study design, they also *missed* hospitalisations and deaths that occurred after the study period ended, even for individuals whose infections they had recorded 7/
Seriously. I still have huge regard for
@propublica
, but
@KatherineEban
and
@jeffykao
launched a manufactured biosafety crisis into international headlines and haven't done a damn thing to correct it, despite the ODNI's clear repudiation
@Samuel_Gregson
@mike_hogan
@KatherineEban
@jeffykao
@propublica
Similar to the ProPublica non-correction, cover your ass with ambiguity instead of explaining to their readers what’s going on. Like, don’t their readers deserve to know whatever happened to the biosafety incident they made up?
@neilsinhababu
@AmandaMarcotte
If Rowling is unwilling to listen to
@AmandaMarcotte
, perhaps she would listen to Dumbledore: 'Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?'
We find that *all* of reported effects of ivermectin in these two studies can be explained by untreated statistical artefacts.
We hope this work provides a useful reference (and a sense of caution) in the risk of common biases and stastical artefacts in clinical studies. 11/
Second, Kerr, Cadegiani, et al included only a biased subset of infections, most of which were in the July 2020 wave, and missed most of the events in the December 2020 wave 6/