Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture
Jun 28, 2021 19 tweets 17 min read Read on X
1/U

Sometimes John Ioannidis just makes me laugh. 😀

In the slide below, Ioannidis discusses age-specific IFR (infection fatality rate), i.e. what proportion of SARS-CoV-2-infected people die of the disease COVID-19 at various ages.

22:23 - 23:18:
Image
3/U

Ioannidis says his Axfors estimates mostly agree with O'Driscoll:

from 23:04


Yet experts noted for around year that his Axfors estimate is a low outlier.

So what's going on here?

publichealthontario.ca/-/media/docume… Image
4/U

O'Driscoll et al. leave out nursing home deaths, while Levin + CDC include them.

Including nursing home deaths increases IFR in older groups, which is one of the main reasons why CDC + Levin are higher than O'Driscoll.



Image
5/U

So Ioannidis should compare O'Driscoll (purple) to his *blue* Axfors results that *exclude* nursing home deaths.

But he compares purple to his *red* Axfors results that *include* nursing home deaths.

Thus, he conceals his work being an outlier. 🤦‍♂️

Image
6/U

John Ioannidis either:
- misremembered
- didn't read O'Driscoll et. closely
- willfully misled his audience

In any event, @GidMK was again more forthcoming than Ioannidis. Makes it even more ridiculous that Ioannidis smeared @GidMK multiple times.

7/U

And, of course, later research supported @GidMK's and @hanage's Levin / CDC results that Ioannidis objected to.

That isn't just my interpretation; that's what the authors of the research state:



mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/6… Image
8/U

This is not the first time Ioannidis has criticized that paper by distorting other research. It's just the first time I've seen him be so blatant + brazen in his distortions.




onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ec… Image
9/U

Ioannidis also says that the papers agree IFR was "very low" until about age 50.

Well, "low" is relative. Compared to other causes of death, it wasn't low. The Levin paper was pretty explicit on that, as were others.

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

Levin:
link.springer.com/article/10.100… Image
10/U

The CDC previously cited another age-specific IFR estimate from @C_Althaus, that largely matched Levin + was larger than Ioannidis' estimate.

Ioannidis left it out, of course

web.archive.org/web/2020091122…




journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/a… Image
11/U

Ioannidis' image also left out the results from Neil Ferguson's team at Imperial College, which again matched Levin.

When he *conveniently* leaves stuff out, it helps conceal the fact that his results are a low outlier.

imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-inf…
[imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial…] Image
12/U

Looks like criticism of the video's content is being blocked from the video's comments section.
Oh well. 🤷‍♂️



- Ghisolfi: gh.bmj.com/content/5/9/e0…
- WHO documents:
apps.who.int/iris/handle/10…
who.int/publications/i…

Image
13/U

Re: "3/U
Ioannidis says his Axfors estimates mostly agree with O'Driscoll"

Axfors update is out.

Ioannidis knew O'Driscoll showed a higher IFR than Axfors results. So he was just being misleading when he said otherwise in the video, as usual.

medrxiv.org/content/10.110… Image
14/U

The Axfors update even adds Imperial College's analysis (ICCRT; see part 11/U), again illustrating how much Ioannidis' Axfors results are a low outlier.

Remember, he did a misleading comparison of orange vs. red, when it should be orange vs. blue.

medrxiv.org/content/10.110… Image
15/U

19:48 - 20:16 :

"In Africa, [COVID-19 deaths were] tremendously undercounted. In India, not as much as it is feared. If you put the numbers in the model, it suggests that there's a little bit of an undercounting. But not tremendous undercounting"

16/U

Several studies present observational evidence of tremendous under-counting of COVID-19 deaths in India, contradicting Ioannidis' model-based claim.



medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
archive.is/JXUtp#selectio…
github.com/akarlinsky/wor…

medrxiv.org/content/10.110… Image
17/U

Researchers keep getting age-specific infection fatality rates larger than Ioannidis' work. Amazing how he can still claim his work isn't a low outlier.



medrxiv.org/content/10.110… Image
18/U

Ioannidis continues claiming he was right all along + that COVID-19 is less dangerous than it actually is.

Of course, the usual COVID-19 minimizers like it.

@JHowardBrainMD
sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-exactly-d…




Image
19/U

Re: "Ioannidis continues claiming he was right all along + that COVID-19 is less dangerous than it actually is.
Of course, the usual COVID-19 minimizers like it."

Thread on it:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Atomsk's Sanakan

Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AtomsksSanakan

Dec 7
1/F

Dr. Anthony Fauci complained about death threats to him, his family, public health experts + staff, etc.

This thread will cover some of the rhetoric that may have contributed to that, along with surrounding context.

1:43:53 - 1:47:40 :
2/F

Fauci is not alone in receiving threats.

For example, there's Dr. Nicole Kleinstreuer:

"Death threats to NIH official spark debate over aggressive campaign to end animal research"
science.org/content/articl…

x.com/AtomsksSanakan…

theguardian.com/us-news/articl… Image
3/F

Threats sometimes lead to physical harm.

"of 510 researchers who had published on SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, 38% acknowledged harassment ranging from personal insults to threats of violence"
journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jv…

doi.org/10.1016/j.puhi…

pbs.org/newshour/natio… Image
Read 21 tweets
Nov 7
1/M

The most secure position in science is one that's both:

1) supported by an evidence-based scientific consensus
2) disputed by Matt Ridley [@mattwridley]

This thread will provide some examples.

x.com/mattwridley/st…
x.com/mattwridley/st…

archive.is/zpiYp Image
2/M

Ridley shows how one can get away with being wrong on topic after topic, as long one states the paranoid ideological narrative many conspiracy theorists want to hear.

Others made this point, such as Dave Farina.

pubpeer.com/publications/D…

youtube.com/watch?v=C-gdab…
3/M

So on to the secure positions that are:
1) supported by an evidence-based scientific consensus
2) disputed by Matt Ridley [@mattwridley]

There's an ongoing multidecadal global warming trend of ~0.3°C/decade.

x.com/AtomsksSanakan…
x.com/AtomsksSanakan… Image
Read 51 tweets
Sep 14
@curryja If it's anything like Steven Koonin's 2014 op-ed in WSJ, then it's filled with ideologically-motivated misinformation and denialism.

archive.is/FTvi1

realclimate.org/index.php/arch…
realclimate.org/index.php/arch…

web.archive.org/web/2014121322…
[archive.is/v03kY] Image
@curryja About 30% more warming occurred during the first quarter of the 21st century than during the last quarter of the 20th century.

Models did fine.

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/20…
x.com/AtomsksSanakan…
realclimate.org/index.php/clim…
x.com/hausfath/statu…

web.archive.org/web/2014121322… Image
Read 8 tweets
May 19
@grok @19joho @WSJopinion @mattwridley x.com/curryja/status…
x.com/curryja/status…

Ryan Maue:
"Use ERA5 or JRA-55"
archive.is/tAbpF#selectio…

archive.is/zsZIh#selectio…

"[...] according to ERA5 [...].
The increase for the last thirty years, from 1995 to 2024, is 0.26 ± 0.05°C per decade."
climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indica… Image
@grok @19joho @WSJopinion @mattwridley @grok Ridley predicted less than 0.5°C of warming.

"Matt Ridley's 2014 prediction that global warming from 1995 to 2025 would be about 0.5°C"
x.com/grok/status/19…

wsj.com/articles/matt-…
[archive.is/32FiP#selectio…] Image
@grok @19joho @WSJopinion @mattwridley Re: "The increase for the last thirty years, from 1995 to 2024, is 0.26 ± 0.05°C per decade"
climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indica…

Matches the ~0.3°C/decade projection Ridley attributed to climate models

"Whatever Happened to Global Warming?"
mattridley.co.uk/blog/whatever-…
[wsj.com/articles/matt-…] Image
Read 4 tweets
Apr 26
1/J

Back in 2019 Javier Vinós (@JVinos_Climate) made some predictions, and I made some in response.

This thread will assess the accuracy of those predictions.

x.com/AtomsksSanakan…
x.com/AtomsksSanakan…

There are also ongoing predictions elsewhere

x.com/AtomsksSanakan…
2/J

In 2019 Vinós said:
"All the warming since 2013 and more will be lost."
judithcurry.com/2019/02/07/cli…

My response:
judithcurry.com/2019/02/07/cli…

He also predicted:
"no net warming over the first quarter of the 21st century"
judithcurry.com/2019/02/08/sea…

My response:
judithcurry.com/2019/02/08/sea… Image
3/J

Data through 2024 supports those predictions + falsifies Vinós claims.

(Data for prediction 3 has not be updated:
archive.is/TjamB)

On predictions 1, 2 , 5, and 6:

x.com/AtomsksSanakan…

library.wmo.int/idurl/4/69455
[web.archive.org/web/2025031905…]
ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitor… Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 25 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(