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

Feb 23
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.



"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.




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.)








Image
Read 31 tweets
Feb 17
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 “COVID-19: examining the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions”"


"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
Mar 13, 2023
69/E

A reminder, since there's a resurgence in Musk + right-wing politicians trying to score political points by saying they want Fauci prosecuted:

Musk's dislike of Fauci drove him to post an easily debunked lie (57/E, 56/, 41/)


Image
70/E

Still no apology from Musk for falsely smearing Grady based on untrue things he was told, or that he made up.

"Elon Musk calls British diver in Thai cave rescue 'pedo' in baseless attack"
theguardian.com/technology/201…



thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-mock… Image
71/E

Another good example of the willful ignorance + baseless paranoia underlying Musk's lab leak conspiracism and his criticisms of Fauci.




archive.is/GZ6er#selectio…
archive.is/ughZK#selectio…
archive.is/WWKtc#selectio… ImageImageImage
Read 11 tweets
Dec 12, 2022
1/E

Some illustrations of the pseudoskepticism that overtakes many crypto / tech bros, using the example of Elon Musk's COVID-19 claims.

"My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci"


onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11… Image
2/E

No, neither chloroquine nor hydroxychloroquine worked for SARS-CoV-2.

Fortunately, Fauci recommended neither in March 2020.

9:12 - 14:41 :



Image
Read 29 tweets
Jun 8, 2022
1/B

Thread on a myth Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) continues to peddle to undermine confidence in public health agencies and to suit his policy agenda.

The myth may undermine responses to future public health emergencies.




stanfordreview.org/the-review-int…
Image
2/B

Some background:

The infection fatality rate (IFR) states the proportion of *SARS-CoV-2-infected* people who die of the disease COVID-19.

The case fatality rate (CFR) states the proportion of *reported cases* who die of COVID-19.

institutefordiseasemodeling.github.io/nCoV-public/an…
Image
3/B

Reporting systems are not perfect, so they sometimes miss infected people. That makes reported cases less than total infections, and thus CFR is higher than IFR.

The WHO was open about this since the early stages of the pandemic:

March 17, 2020:
web.archive.org/web/2020102205…
Image
Read 26 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!

:(