Regular readers may recall me critiquing the blood clot study that appeared in BMJ awhile back. In that critique, I pointed to the disproportionate number of cases in the vaccinated shown in table 1 below. For context, the 1,758,095 cases in the vaccinated between December and April? That is 115,000 more cases than there had been in the pandemic up until that point (see below).
Over -100% here. The most important thing -> These people were seropositive at baseline. Meaning, the virus "reinfected" them upon vaccination (a complete fabrication unless genomic sequencing is done and ensured it was not reactivation of unresolved infection or latent reservoir in NAAT test negative).
Most egregious, the viral load in the supplemental index clearly shows how this virus evolves> by tricking the recovering vulnerable who are afraid into vaccination and using that phase to learn all the tricks to evade and transmit better. of course, our health authorities are experts in looking the wrong way.
By the way, your work is amazing. Thank you. I was about cite a comment by you in another debate.
The first chart that person posted versus the second is... Yikes! Without reading too much of the study, I am going to assume they did not mention anything about the ambiguous interpretation that might stem from a regression where one of the independent variables is clearly not independent?
Actually, using a proportional hazards regression is brilliant for bad actors. No matter where they would use that type of regression, it would make VE look much higher despite all evidence to the contrary.
I guess they have plausible deniability for any wrongdoing... "I'm a doctor not a mathematician!"
And I realize now I did not mention the variable I take issue with i.e., "Monthly Sars-CoV-2 incidence for the local authority..."
Local authorities are almost definitely coordinating vaccinations, vaccinations weaken the immune system (at least for awhile) and create infections... Thus it will make the risk in that particular local authority seem higher.
Thanks for clarifying but we are mind reading well enough where we both knew exactly what we were referencing but this will help out others who may read this in the future.
I never even read the paper, I just sent an email to him because he was challenged by some establishment scientists (maybe Topol?) that he's spreading misinformation about enhanced spread in partially vaccinated. I'd basically given up on the pandemic since May 2020 but the scenes from India really did knock me out of my senses and I realized that people are really not going to stop and now it's up to people like you, that twitter user, and perhaps people like me to start analyzing what's going on because this thing is out of control! They are totally blinded at this point. I'd made it a point to just directly goto the supplementary materials in any paper without even reading the abstract or any of the paper's conclusions. In my short experience of reading pandemic literature, I understood that the field has publishing pressure of dynamically changing needs. They will design a study to 'show' something, then they will 'see' something else, and then the art is trying to not show to the public that which they've seen. Since they can't unsee it. So the simplest rule of thumb is - These people will only ever accidentally put something in the main paper or that they don't consider important. The peer review process will force all the unspeakable conclusions and data to the supplementary materials. I have to say, this is best decision I ever made because there is zero problems reading the paper later and checking how dishonest or honest the conclusions are after you've already seen the real data.
These people at the time when they were publishing, likely didn't suspect onward transmission but they should absolutely never ever use regression models with dependent variables to try and cover up negative efficacy. I'm more disappointed in scientists than I've ever been in my whole life. I used to argue with a friend of mine during college about religion and science. I used to proudly tell him that if I had to choose between trusting a scientist vs a priest, I would obviously trust a scientist because a scientist is committed to empiricism!
Like a naive child. I understand now that everyone is committed to empiricism up until it gets to their religion. And the religion in science is whatever the other scientists are telling them to think.
The most important information from academic papers are usually stashed in a footnote somewhere. I did a stint as a TA back in grad school and the most interesting part in grading students papers is seeing how much they rely on the abstract of papers (when using them as a reference).
Our entire education system is built around the noise. Students are told they need x number of references, so they lazily read a few abstracts and draw one or two quotes from articles they do not understand. Professors are told to publish x number of peer reviewed articles to get a promotion, so they turn out low quality, lazy material (hence why we see so many proportional hazard regressions and negative test control studies lately). Peer reviewers are often volunteers or are paid very little to look over papers. Honestly, peer review means a few people read it once or twice and think the premise and conclusion are close to plausible. It does not mean someone meticulously went through the paper looking for errors. That process happens when the paper is exposed to the public, which also means incorrect papers can be used to push an agenda. These turn out to be the same articles that the aforementioned students (and moronic journalists) are referencing without reading. And worst of all, even in the face of intense, study nullifying criticism, these papers are only retracted if they go against a set narrative... A narrative that is defined by the same incorrect papers.
I understand this word for word 100%. I loved grad students grading papers much more because they had a lower tolerance level for shoddy work compared to research scientists who were too bust to care. I remember hearing this argument from a Mathematical Physics grad student grading a paper in differential equations class that the reason why he won't give "grace" points for attempting a question and working it out but getting the wrong answer is "Would you want your doctor to make mistakes or have learned everything the right way?". Back in those days, that was inspiring to hear that someone out there is not cutting corners and sees the big picture impact of letting small mistakes slide instead of wanting repetitions until perfected.
Obviously, I can't explain Laplace transform to the average person but I know they instinctively understand it and if science was not obfuscating with mathematical notation and alien greek symbols, much of our current problems would be solved by normal people who can spot nonsense even if they are morons (like I am).
I love Substack for giving me a platform but I really do miss Twitter from before my banning as a place for conversation that's direct and the ability to reply without nesting and embedding pictures to swiftly move the conversation forward. Perhaps Substack is more reading vs linking and talking oriented.
But I apologize in advance for spammy replies I will send now.
Over -100% here. The most important thing -> These people were seropositive at baseline. Meaning, the virus "reinfected" them upon vaccination (a complete fabrication unless genomic sequencing is done and ensured it was not reactivation of unresolved infection or latent reservoir in NAAT test negative).
https://twitter.com/mahmudme01/status/1448644758872621069?s=20
Most egregious, the viral load in the supplemental index clearly shows how this virus evolves> by tricking the recovering vulnerable who are afraid into vaccination and using that phase to learn all the tricks to evade and transmit better. of course, our health authorities are experts in looking the wrong way.
By the way, your work is amazing. Thank you. I was about cite a comment by you in another debate.
The first chart that person posted versus the second is... Yikes! Without reading too much of the study, I am going to assume they did not mention anything about the ambiguous interpretation that might stem from a regression where one of the independent variables is clearly not independent?
Actually, using a proportional hazards regression is brilliant for bad actors. No matter where they would use that type of regression, it would make VE look much higher despite all evidence to the contrary.
I guess they have plausible deniability for any wrongdoing... "I'm a doctor not a mathematician!"
And I realize now I did not mention the variable I take issue with i.e., "Monthly Sars-CoV-2 incidence for the local authority..."
Local authorities are almost definitely coordinating vaccinations, vaccinations weaken the immune system (at least for awhile) and create infections... Thus it will make the risk in that particular local authority seem higher.
Thanks for clarifying but we are mind reading well enough where we both knew exactly what we were referencing but this will help out others who may read this in the future.
I never even read the paper, I just sent an email to him because he was challenged by some establishment scientists (maybe Topol?) that he's spreading misinformation about enhanced spread in partially vaccinated. I'd basically given up on the pandemic since May 2020 but the scenes from India really did knock me out of my senses and I realized that people are really not going to stop and now it's up to people like you, that twitter user, and perhaps people like me to start analyzing what's going on because this thing is out of control! They are totally blinded at this point. I'd made it a point to just directly goto the supplementary materials in any paper without even reading the abstract or any of the paper's conclusions. In my short experience of reading pandemic literature, I understood that the field has publishing pressure of dynamically changing needs. They will design a study to 'show' something, then they will 'see' something else, and then the art is trying to not show to the public that which they've seen. Since they can't unsee it. So the simplest rule of thumb is - These people will only ever accidentally put something in the main paper or that they don't consider important. The peer review process will force all the unspeakable conclusions and data to the supplementary materials. I have to say, this is best decision I ever made because there is zero problems reading the paper later and checking how dishonest or honest the conclusions are after you've already seen the real data.
These people at the time when they were publishing, likely didn't suspect onward transmission but they should absolutely never ever use regression models with dependent variables to try and cover up negative efficacy. I'm more disappointed in scientists than I've ever been in my whole life. I used to argue with a friend of mine during college about religion and science. I used to proudly tell him that if I had to choose between trusting a scientist vs a priest, I would obviously trust a scientist because a scientist is committed to empiricism!
Like a naive child. I understand now that everyone is committed to empiricism up until it gets to their religion. And the religion in science is whatever the other scientists are telling them to think.
The most important information from academic papers are usually stashed in a footnote somewhere. I did a stint as a TA back in grad school and the most interesting part in grading students papers is seeing how much they rely on the abstract of papers (when using them as a reference).
Our entire education system is built around the noise. Students are told they need x number of references, so they lazily read a few abstracts and draw one or two quotes from articles they do not understand. Professors are told to publish x number of peer reviewed articles to get a promotion, so they turn out low quality, lazy material (hence why we see so many proportional hazard regressions and negative test control studies lately). Peer reviewers are often volunteers or are paid very little to look over papers. Honestly, peer review means a few people read it once or twice and think the premise and conclusion are close to plausible. It does not mean someone meticulously went through the paper looking for errors. That process happens when the paper is exposed to the public, which also means incorrect papers can be used to push an agenda. These turn out to be the same articles that the aforementioned students (and moronic journalists) are referencing without reading. And worst of all, even in the face of intense, study nullifying criticism, these papers are only retracted if they go against a set narrative... A narrative that is defined by the same incorrect papers.
It's a vicious circle, really.
I understand this word for word 100%. I loved grad students grading papers much more because they had a lower tolerance level for shoddy work compared to research scientists who were too bust to care. I remember hearing this argument from a Mathematical Physics grad student grading a paper in differential equations class that the reason why he won't give "grace" points for attempting a question and working it out but getting the wrong answer is "Would you want your doctor to make mistakes or have learned everything the right way?". Back in those days, that was inspiring to hear that someone out there is not cutting corners and sees the big picture impact of letting small mistakes slide instead of wanting repetitions until perfected.
Obviously, I can't explain Laplace transform to the average person but I know they instinctively understand it and if science was not obfuscating with mathematical notation and alien greek symbols, much of our current problems would be solved by normal people who can spot nonsense even if they are morons (like I am).
I love Substack for giving me a platform but I really do miss Twitter from before my banning as a place for conversation that's direct and the ability to reply without nesting and embedding pictures to swiftly move the conversation forward. Perhaps Substack is more reading vs linking and talking oriented.
But I apologize in advance for spammy replies I will send now.