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. šŸ˜€

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. šŸ¤¦ā€ā™‚ļø

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. šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø



- 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
怀

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 9, 2024
@luckytran Bhattacharya' NIH nomination for 2025 is reminiscent of Scott Pruitt's EPA nomination for 2017:

Position a contrarian ideologue whose views contradict published evidence + expert assessments.

x.com/_johnbye/statu…
x.com/pjavidan/statu…

cnbc.com/2017/03/09/sco… Image
@luckytran In which Bhattacharya does the intellectual equivalent of claiming vaccine denialists are being unfairly persecuted because Andrew Wakefield's blog told him so

🤢

x.com/AlastairMcA30/…

x.com/AliNeitzelMD/s…
x.com/AtomsksSanakan… Image
@luckytran x.com/AtomsksSanakan…
x.com/AtomsksSanakan…

Bhattacharya, November 2020:

"What they're doing is focused protection, and you can see the result. The infection rates are going up in Sweden, but the death rates are not."
edhub.ama-assn.org/jn-learning/vi…

ourworldindata.org/explorers/covi… Image
Read 5 tweets
Nov 18, 2024
@luckytran No, 'focused protection' did not lead to herd immunity within 6 months in Florida.

"Florida, which adopted a focused-protection approach"
spiked-online.com/2021/08/02/the…

x.com/GidMK/status/1…

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

gbdeclaration.org/frequently-ask… Image
@luckytran When your main non-lockdown example... has a lockdown.

"announced a ban on public events of more than eight people"
web.archive.org/web/2020120111…

"upper secondary schools are again closing"
thelocal.se/20201203/swede…

x.com/DrKatrin_Rabie…

Bhattacharya:
gbdeclaration.org/frequently-ask… Image
Read 5 tweets
Nov 17, 2024
@luckytran Re: "Bhattacharya has spread disinformation on COVID"

You may want to support this claim, if you haven't already.

There are plenty of examples of him spreading misinformation.

For instance: on masking

x.com/AtomsksSanakan…
x.com/RobertoCast212…

jamanetwork.com/journals/jamap… Image
@luckytran Promoting obvious disinformation about China's COVID-19 policy.

x.com/ResidingCynic/…
x.com/doritmi/status…

web.archive.org/web/2022010218… Image
@luckytran Saying a majority of Indians had "natural immunity" when the real number was ~25%, weeks before India suffered a large COVID-19 wave

x.com/GYamey/status/…
x.com/AtomsksSanakan… Image
Read 28 tweets
Feb 23, 2024
71/J

I recently got a copy of Dr. Judith Curry's book without buying it myself.

Looking over it confirmed to me that it's largely misinformation.

I'll illustrate that by assessing its claims on COVID-19.

x.com/AtomsksSanakan…

"11.3.1 COVID-19"
amazon.com/Climate-Uncert… Image
72/J

To reiterate: Curry draws parallels between COVID-19 + climate change.

But some of the sources she cites suggest an ideologically convenient narrative misinformed her.

That becomes clearer when assessing her claims.

x.com/AtomsksSanakan…
x.com/AtomsksSanakan… Image
73/J

No mention of the misinformation she + other contrarians promoted, and which conflicted with knowledge advances by experts.

(8/J - 12/J, 32J - 36/J, 44/J, 45/J, 63/J, etc.)

x.com/AtomsksSanakan…
x.com/AtomsksSanakan…
x.com/AtomsksSanakan…
x.com/AtomsksSanakan… Image
Read 47 tweets
Feb 17, 2024
1/J

Dr. Judith Curry recommends people read at least the 45-page preview of her new book.

I did.

It's bad enough I wouldn't recommend buying the book.
It's largely contrarian conspiracist misinformation.




amazon.com/Climate-Uncert…
Image
Read 72 tweets
Aug 30, 2023
PapersOfTheDay

"Executive Summary to the Royal Society report ā€œCOVID-19: examining the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventionsā€"


"Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: [...]"
royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rs…
royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rs…
Jefferson + Heneghan don't like the papers.

Makes sense they wouldn't given their track record, especially Jefferson on the Cochrane mask review he led.







brownstone.org/articles/royal…



cochrane.org/news/statement…
Image
Read 5 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!

:(