There is a strangely organized rumor going around that the AMA passed a resolution recognizing the efficacy of HCQ and calling on a reversal of its suppression. Unfortunately, that resolution was not passed, but I suggest the story is more interesting than that...
When you think about it, the resolution never had a chance of passing. Intuitively, we all know this. The AMA and Pharma are far too intertwined, and further with the government. Suggesting that the resolution could pass would be to suggest there was no opposition to begin with.
But here is the interesting part: Almost nobody, save for the few of us doing broad levels of research on the topic, knew to step in and correct the mistake. What does that mean?
The "superior, educated aspiring elites" would happily correct any real error, but most of them were as in the dark as everyone else. I know because I have conversations with enough of them.
The doctors themselves have clammed up. In all the dishonesty and chaos, most of them have an incentive right now to back out of all public discourse. The simplest statements, correct or not, can be scandalized in a heartbeat. Hard earned vocations can evaporate overnight.
The media doesn't want the subject to get past, "Can you believe those idiots are still talking about HCQ?" unless the continuation is, "When can we open re-education camps?"
What that means is that the hopeful researchers, who want to be honest but trust too easily when the trust suggests the opposition is dishonest, were lost in the woods.
I suggest this isn't the first time that's happened and it won't be the last.
In fact, as we are locked down, sharing information primarily through social network filters, you should suspect that we are all subject to an enormous number of rapid psychological experiments.
This may have been one of them.
Don't think too hard unless you're going to go deep at the research level. In your gut, you know it's true.
But that's the problem, too. From here on out, they're working on how to shift your gut.
This is going to get worse before it gets better.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As a consistent third party voter living in a state that wasn't going to swing a close election, I don't vote R or D.
But this is the time to throw weight behind an investigation into the possibility of a stolen election. We must investigate the statistical evidence.
So, let us investigate the statistical evidence broadly and as a community. Carefully and honestly. Benford's law is a clever technique, but there is an underlying reason behind it that should be understood to best apply the fundamental test.
The reason behind it is that population pools grow exponentially, so they move through orders of magnitude at an invariant rate. If we take the logarithm, the results are then linear. Discarding the integer parts, the fraction parts should form a uniform distribution.
1. This thread is a bit of comic relief from the pandemic.
2. Somewhere, out in the Ocean, a beautiful and thriving civilization spans the island of Pandemos. Larger in land size than Australia, you might miss it on a map, er, due to distortions in scale caused by Mercator projection.
3. The lush and resourceful Pandemos has allowed for the Pandemosians to engineer an amazing modern society.
1. This is a thread compiling the most interesting threads of the 2020 pandemic. If you've seen a thread or even a single epic tweet that you think belongs, share it and I'll consider adding it.
2. The #LancetGate may get a few mentions along the way.
How did anyone who handle the Surgisphere study prior to publication think it would look real?
1. This thread is about a statistical phenomenon called a Simpson's paradox and how it relates to the #Hydroxychloroquine research that gets so hotly debated.
A more complete version of this analysis will appear in my next book #TheChloroquineWars.
2. If you are unfamiliar with Simpson's paradoxes, you can read up on the basics here. However, the example I present may well teach the concept. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%2…
3. Consider three hospitals with different treatment policies. Perhaps the standard of care (SoC) is uniform, for the sake of simplicity, but the hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) treatment policies are different.
1. This is a very brief story about how two members of the U.S. COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel hid their financial disclosures with Gilead Sciences, makers of remdesivir...
2. Exhibit A: On April 22, Rajesh Gandhi and Pablo Tebas disclosed financial relationships with Gilead Sciences.
3. Exhibit B: Sometime between then and now, Rajesh Gandhi and Pablo Tebas retracted their disclosures of financial relationships with Gilead Sciences.