Thread by @alexandrosM

Allright. Down the rabbit hole we go. I'll do a line-by-line read of the latest Quilette piece by Deigin and Berlinski (not @-ing to not annoy) on @BretWeinstein. I'm bothered enough that I want to strip off the invective and see if there's anything left. quillette.com/2021/07/06/loo…

Before we get started, some ground rules, I am a Doctor, but my PhD is in Computing, so unless you're a computer, please don't take what I write here as medical advice. I want to read through it and parse critiques I've seen from @t_ayorinde, @GanineVanalst, @satrapo86, &c

I respect many of the people involved, so part of the reason I'm doing this is to work through this car crash and make sure I understand what I'm reading. This won't be a clean, coherent thread. Maybe I'll do one of those afterwards. For now, stream-of-consciousness it is.

Starting with the title, this article is polemic. I know authors often say they don't choose the title, but I can't accept that dodge, as the title is the frame. If they didn't like it, they didn't have to accept to publish it.

"Looking for COVID-19 ‘Miracle Drugs’? We Already Have Them. They’re Called Vaccines". To be clear what this does, it quotes "miracle drugs". I expect to see a quote from BW using it. Otherwise it's mischaracterizing. The snark of the rest of the title helps nobody. Moving on.

The first paragraph is interesting, in that it appears as praise but also sets the tone badly, and also misses some facts. For instance, Bret did not "win" his lawsuit, he settled. And calling it a "carreer as a podcaster" is derogatory, no doubt about it.

I also don't love the use of the word "martyr" here, especially in light of recent discussion he's had e.g. on the Lex Fridman podcast, but then again I also don't like the description of the Evergreen students as "seemed to resemble nothing so much as a lab accident gone wrong".

I always make sure to emphasize that everyone is the hero of their own story. If you start by dehumanizing people you don't like, it's already a tell that your models may be shallow. But that's just my suspicion so far.

The next paragraph is more straightforward, saying what I understand to be the facts. He has a following, and people trust him. true.

Next up, we enter assertion-land. "Recently, Weinstein has graduated from entertaining theories that might not be right but could do no harm, to theories that cannot be right and are sure to do harm." Much more work was needed to utter this sentence, and upto now there's none.

This is actually extremely important to me as a reader. If i detect the article I'm reading is telling me what to think, I immediately switch to skeptical reading mode, as I am now on the defensive against being manipulated.

Also, "cannot be right" is such a high bar, that it is pretty much impossible to meet. The authors are already telling me that unless I see airtight logical proof, not probabilistic, they're overstating whatever claim they have. Let's ignore this and move on.

More assertions: "...this harm can be measured and is considerable. His promotion of outright quackery". Measured? Are you sure? I expect numbers. "Outright quackery" - more impossibly high bar claims to meet.

It's so sad to see this kind of manipulative and unsupportable writing that has been used against the proponents of the lab leak theory being trotted out here. It has no place in public discourse around science, and can only harm the conversation. It surely won't convince anyone.

HYPOTHESIS. lab leak HYPOTHESIS. dammit.

The next paragraph is dramatization, except for this: "He and his guests offered the claim that ivermectin is “99 percent effective” in treating COVID-19; that it could be used as a prophylaxis against infection". Since this 99% number seems important, I would like a longer quote

Things being what they are, I will have to go chase after it myself. But that will have to be after I take a break for some real-life stuff. Feel free to send responses, link evidence, etc. hopefully we can get through this article together.

Ok, I'm back. I looked for the quote and I can't find it, nor can I find a good transcript, so we'll have to assume it's what @Mary_J_Fifer says here:

https://twitter.com/Mary_J_Fifer/status/1412825121446797312?s=20

"These truths, they suggested, had been suppressed by a conspiracy. They did not specify the mechanism by which the supposed conspiracy works, but they were clear about its object: selling COVID-19 vaccines.". Here we go with the "conspiracy theory" garbage. Come on, Yuri.

I will say that I don't find Bret's assertion that the motivation is "selling more vaccines". For one, pharma shares have not risen much, reflecting the belief that the market doesn't expect them to come out very far ahead here, and secondly, it seems they may lose their patents.

"YouTube, rotely enforcing its Terms of Service provisions and COVID-19 medical misinformation policy (these are very explicit and detailed) promptly took the podcast down.". It's not "rotely" doing it. It is responding to press inquiries here, when it doesn't do so otherwise.

Also. these "Terms of Service" provisions are downright insane. I can sell homeopathy, or tell you to drink gasoline to cure cancer. So long as I don't tell you there's evidence supporting IVM as being effective for COVID.

https://twitter.com/alexandrosm/status/1405360837796061184

We continue with further unsupported assertions. "To Weinstein and many of his followers, this was evidence of the conspiracy."

This is just false: "he and his guests argued that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines authorized for use in the United States, as well as the AstraZeneca adenovirus-vector vaccine, are so unsafe that the vaccinated are secretly dropping like flies from their effects."

@Quillette you need to either cite this or correct it, as it stands it is simply slander. Attack his actual positions, you don't need to manufacture imaginary ones.

"He also has avowed, on both the podcast and his Twitter feed, his trust in a UK physician named Tess Lawrie who has published a phenomenally insane paper that calls COVID-19 vaccines “unsafe for human use.”" phenomenally insane? without citation? what is this? what am I reading?

Ok folks. We need to talk here. You're discussing a paper by Theresa Lawrie, an academic with thousands upon thousands of citations. You do not get to just say "phenomenally insane" and move on. scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&…

I'm all for saying that everyone needs to be able to be part of the conversation, but this kind of disregard for facts and background is reflecting back on the authors. I will attempt to move on, but this is contemptible.

"Weinstein and another physician affiliated with the FLCCC, American critical-care physician Pierre Kory, then visited Joe Rogan’s podcast". I notice that they don't mock Rogan for calling this an "emergency podcast" or say it happened because the Bret-Kory vid got taken down.

"...to argue that because large pharmaceutical companies make more money by bringing new, untested drugs to the market than by selling repurposed drugs such as ivermectin..." 1) they didn't go there to argue this. It's disingenuous to say they did. 2) they didn't say "untested"

3) who doubts that companies make more money selling proprietary medicines? This is well understood. Anyway, let's continue with the quote.

"...they have convinced government officials and social-media companies to obscure or suppress the evidence of the trail of death and misery these COVID-19 vaccines are leaving in their wake." Stripping out the drama, I believe Bret often talks about the emergence of ill effects.

He never says "pharma execs and government and big tech got in a smoke-filled room and money changed hands". This is implied here, and it's disingenuous. I really hope the actual content starts at some point.

"The consequences of Weinstein’s caper will be ruinous." See? I don't have to make up absurd quotes. I can just use the ones that were typed directly in the article. This also serves as a prediction.

They claimed they can measure the effects of Bret's position. Now they claim that the effects will be "ruinous". How many dead are we talking? A thousand? A million? Keep in mind we've not gotten into the meat of the argumentation yet.

If either author would operationalize this in a convincing manner, I'll bet them a $10k donation to a charity of their choice that they're wrong, if they reciprocate. I believe in putting my money where my mouth is, it would be good to see if others are willing to do same.

It's important to mention that in my mind, this consequentialist approach to the truth as in, "don't say what you know or think because think of the consequences" is behind much of our current situation. Everyone thinks they know consequences. Nobody does. In either direction.

"COVID-19’s Delta variant, twice as contagious and possibly more lethal than the original strain, is ravaging the world. Its effects have been devastating in India, and among the unvaccinated in the UK." -- I bet you I heard something about bad variants coming down the line.

It was in some podcast with a funny name? Stark force? Lark Worse? Can't put it together. It had this guy with a funny name on it @GVDBossche talking about how the way we deploy vaccines may lead to an ongoing pandemic and vaccine escapes. Have you been imbibing misinformation?

"Indian hospitals have reported a high case load of pediatric mortality and morbidity. That children can die from COVID-19 is a point worth stressing, given the emphasis that Weinstein and other vaccine skeptics have placed on the vaccines’ risks to children." Let's unpack this.

It links to this article europepmc.org/article/med/34… , that summarizes "A total of 260 COVID-19 cases from eight hospitals across seven countries". Reports "overall mortality was 2.3%, with all deaths reported from India and Pakistan", already here we're seeing local effects maybe?

Further, the abstract closes "Risk factors for severe disease in children were age younger than 12 months, presence of comorbidities, and cough at presentation." So we're talking about 6 children, predominantly infants, some with comorbidities, in India and Pakistan. A tragedy.

But how could it possibly support the assertion it's being used for? Did anyone claim infirm infants are not at high risk? This is not what is understood by "Indian hospitals have reported a high case load of pediatric mortality and morbidity."

The article continues "That children can die from COVID-19 is a point worth stressing, given the emphasis that Weinstein and other vaccine skeptics have placed on the vaccines’ risks to children." The authors have done their claim a disservice, and histrionics don't help it.

"The impression listeners might get from Weinstein’s podcast is that children are at no risk from this disease. This is false." Nothing was ever said along those lines, which is why they have to weasel-word it as "impression" and "may. Sad.

"A retrospective cohort study [...] in Nature found that among 12,306 lab-confirmed pediatric COVID-19 patients in the United States, in the study cohort, the hospitalisation frequency was 5.3%, with 17.6% needing critical care services and 4.1% requiring mechanical ventilation."

I don't need to see the study to tell you this quote is sheer journalistic malpractice. I will read the study next, and I sure as hell hope I don't see 4.1% OF 17.6% OF 5.3% OF 12,306 needing mechanical ventilation, though nothing else makes sense. This is the worst part so far.

So, reading this: nature.com/articles/s4159…, I read this: "In our study cohort, ~ 5% were hospitalized, and among those who were hospitalized, ~ 18% required critical care, and ~ 4% needed mechanical ventilation." 4% of 5% is 0.2%. And almost half the cohort were adolescents.

This is, apparently, the text they settled on after being corrected by numerous commenters. I cannot express the outrage I have for the fear they created in parents everywhere. This is not a joke, and these people need to get a handle on themselves.

https://twitter.com/gfodor/status/1412847821963755522?s=20

"We don’t know how many cases go unconfirmed, so this study leaves important questions unanswered." - We also don't know how many cases of COVID go undetected so what the hell are you trying to say here? Add uncertainty to the fear and doubt you already created? Shameful.

I'm afraid it gets worse. "Last year, it made the top-10 list of causes of pediatric death in the United States." A list? What list? wbrc.com/2021/05/23/cov… "Officials with Children’s of Alabama said in 2020, the virus was one of the top 10 leading causes of death in children."

“COVID is the tenth leading cause of death for children in the United States,” Dr. David Kimberlin with Children’s of Alabama said. “It is among most common causes of death in children and adolescents.” Which is it? Children or children and adolescents? Let's find out.

No data I can find, but here's 2018: advisory.com/en/daily-brief… - #10 cause of death in adolescents and children accounts to 274 deaths. Including all under-18's. This is more scaremongering, and should not be needed if their point was strong.

"If even a few thousand of Weinstein’s listeners have been convinced by him to avoid being vaccinated...". And if even a few thousand of your readers end up locking their kids inside their homes messing up development in critical years... is this how we're going to play this?

A useful point to mention that the article has completely erased @HeatherEHeying, the other Professor of Evolutionary Biology on the podcast. I don't know why this is, but it's weird to hear all the focus on Bret, when Heather has been just as, if not more, outspoken.

When discussing risks from vaccines, they make sure to say "We write “tentatively” because the numbers are so small that it is hard to know if the link is statistically meaningful.". It's fascinating that they'd be so cautious here, but when it's 0.2% of under-18s it's ironclad.

But of course they don't address the elephant in the room. The VAERS data cited in the podcast. This number below was until April, it's now close to 7000. Make of it what you will, but this is why they're worried. And VAERS certainly doesn't capture all.

https://mobile.twitter.com/PerpetualValue/status/1387676596006424576

Checking to see I didn't miss any VAERS reference. Nope, nothing. They literally didn't discuss, even to dismiss, why Bret is worried. I was hoping to see something interesting, until now this is probably the worst piece of text I've had the displeasure to read. Seriously horrid.

The next paragraph is just sad. Talking about blood clots as if this is why Bret and Heather are worried. I'm starting to wonder if they even saw the podcasts in question. I know I started even-keeled and my tone has deteriorated, but I had no idea how amateurish this article is.

The derangement continues: "The only pandemic-afflicted world to which Weinstein’s eccentric risk analysis would apply is one in which some other, safer drug or therapy prevented or cured COVID-19 without vaccines." Is the implication that Bret does not want vaccines to be used?

If so, this would be an extremely serious claim that needs to be *cited*. Not just buried in the noise. I've seen Bret say he's worried. I've seen him say IVM could *in theory* end the pandemic. I've seen him question motives. I've not seen him say he's sure vaccines are bad.

At this point I need a breath, but keep in mind what my contention is. Not that Bret is holy or faultless. It's that he needs better skeptics. When all they bring is this level of quality, it's easy to get ahead of yourself, and I don't want that to happen.

https://twitter.com/alexandrosM/status/1412748569749049353

The rest of this paragraph and the next talk about the argentinian study. Apparently it doesn't pass the "smell test". Bret can't accuse pharma of wanting profits, but the authors here can apply "the smell test" to a published study.

Read the 4 tweet-sequence by @GanineVanalst to see the assertions on the Argentine study hoisted by their own citation, which does not support their claim.

https://twitter.com/GanineVanalst/status/1412610537804947459?s=20

And another tweet on plasma from a fantastic voice of reason with medical experience in the comments

https://twitter.com/t_ayorinde/status/1412741838700752898?s=20

By the way, when responding to @GanineVanalst in the comments, Yuri made further false assertions, and further victory laps. This is a failure to learn.

https://twitter.com/GanineVanalst/status/1412668478834757637

Moving on, the authors begin to discuss the meta-analyses on Ivermectin safety. They discuss this one here published in April - bmj.com/content/373/bm… and this one albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/pp… published in February and the title of the page for this begins with DRAFT.

They cite this February draft analysis to discredit Tess Lawrie's published in June. "They specifically note the “critically low quality” of Dr. Tess Lawrie’s meta-analysis.", Lawrie's review passed peer-review twice, as the Lancet refused to publish it, overriding the reviewers.

The double-takes continue with this sentence "If it’s even marginally beneficial, tens of thousands of lives might be saved as the world waits, in desperation, for vaccines." which essentially echoes Bret Weinstein's actual position much more closely than anything else so far.

But then return to garbage assertions with this classic: "Even if it’s not effective at all, the placebo effect could offer real benefits to patients who sincerely believe it’s a miracle drug.". I'm running out of comments. This isn't even a good hit job.

On IVM & pregnancy: "Ivermectin is a known teratogen: It is dangerous for pregnant women to be exposed to it, no less to take it, especially in high doses." citing: thelancet.com/journals/langl…, findings:"insufficient evidence to conclude on the safety profile of IVM during pregnancy"

They also cite testicular dysfunction by citing a study in rats: researchgate.net/publication/51… and then, stay with me reader, they make the stupidest claim yet.

If I read this correctly, are they saying that IVM depletes selenium, which makes COVID-19 outcomes worse, and that this confounding factor hasn't been accounted for in the studies where IVM makes things better? Or are they saying that the selenium prescribed with IVM is...

...actually responsible for the improvement? If so, why aren't they calling for studies of the "miracle drug" selenium? I thought they cared for human lives lost. This is really pathetic and I've lost the will to continue with this tripe, but since I started the thread, let's go.

Then they continue to discuss an original in vitro study that showed results in experiments with green monkey kidney cells and is *not* the reason anyone cares about IVM right now. So what's the point of scaremongering with it and discussing dosage? What is the actual point?

"Often, cell or animal studies in vitro offer promising results but yield no benefit in humans. And adverse effects, or a lack thereof, in animals do not necessarily translate to the same effect in humans." - Are they talking about the rat study they linked to above? Hard to tell

"The evidence that mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are safe, and that they work, is about as solid as medical evidence gets. Sure, no one can prove that in 10 years’ time, you won’t suffer ill effects. But nor is there any reason to fear this." I'll let this stand on its own.

The next paragraph contorts itself to link a claim by Steve Kirsch to Alex Jones. This guilt by association business has got to end. Refute the claim or STFU. God forbid Jones says the sky is blue.

"the claim relies on a misunderstanding of the way data is collected by the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System". Finally, a VAERS reference. So sadly we'll have to get to this. We have been discussing with @Iseravi1 about how much data goes to VAERS, and she dug into it.

She found that "Everyone who gets vaccinated will be encouraged to register for the V-SAFE tool.". Fun fact, she read the pamphlet and registered. I was told nothing and of course I read nothing so didn't register. So I wondered what the conversion rate was.

She found the following: "More than 90 million Americans have received at least one shot, yet the CDC's v-safe monitoring program has only 6 million participants". That's a 6.6% conversion rate. At least does everything reported get to VAERS?

"Anyone who reports a clinically important event — missing work, being unable to do normal daily activities or receiving medical care — will get a follow-up phone call and a report may be filed in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)"

So basically, it relies on self-reporting, and then being able to answer a call, and then (something) "may" be filed as a report to VAERS. What percentage of events are we supposing is going in to VAERS here? My intent is not to create fears of vaccines, but this is madness.

If, as a startup founder, I cared about collecting the data in my pipeline, and my analytics team showed up with this system as representative, they would no longer be my analytics team. This is not what one does when they truly want to gather all data.

"By early June, 1.7 billion doses of these vaccines had been administered around the world—to humans, we stress, because, as Weinstein and his guests correctly point out, this is the most important kind of data." Or, rats. Depends on the argument we are trying to make.

the rest of this paragraph goes on and on about vaccine efficacy that nobody questions. It essentially supports the claim above that Bret Weinstein wants people not to use vaccines, which of course nobody makes. Don Quixote called and is saying something about some windmills?

The next couple of paragraphs continue to make additional claims about the safety of IVM that to be completely honest with you I can't continue to read in detail when they've discarded the best evidence. But have no fear dear reader!

"If the evidence changes, our minds will change with it." they write. Clearly a typo. They must have meant "If our minds change, the evidence will change with them.". Easy mistake to make, and really, why stop now?

Next paragraph starts like so: "The ivermectin brigade is not apt to be persuaded by this." I wonder why. Moving on.

Next paragraph: "To put things simply: We have proof that ivermectin is terrific for river blindness and head lice." - but are you sure? I bet you can create proof that it's terrible. Have you looked at the plasma concentrations? It couldn't possibly work since it's dosed weekly.

"No one disputes Bret Weinstein’s right to embrace the theory that ivermectin is a miracle drug, or to regale his listeners with vaccine horror stories and conspiracy theories." Lies upon unsupported lies.

"But the rest of us reserve the right to be appalled by his judgment and ethics." Ah, the punchline. I wonder if the rest of *us* reserve the right to be apalled by *your* judgement and ethics given you've packaged up some of the worst arguments in human history.

"Claire Berlinski is an American journalist and author based ... running a series this week about the spread of anti-vaccination sentiment on the Internet" - You know what spreads anti-vax sentiment? Use of bad logic to attack alternates, creating the sense that sth is wrong.

I'm sure I'll have something intelligent to say once I'm over the trauma of having to go through this, but seriously, I've lost an incredible amount of respect for all involved here. This needs to be retracted as a whole, immediately @Quillette. It cannot be fixed.

I want to thank @gfodor @Mary_J_Fifer @satrapo86 and everyone else who kept me company (and sane) while reading this. And for a sad note, this is Bret's response to Yuri's grandstand:

https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1412585417677938689?s=20

Morning! If I told you someone over at Quilette's forums had seven *mostly different* critiques, which also seem spot-on, would you believe me? forum.quillette.com/t/looking-for-…

Let's address responses from one author and the editor of the Quilette article: @clairlemon believes my critique was one of "tone". I will leave this to the readers to decide, given that she unfollowed me after I wrote this and I can't respond to the post.

https://twitter.com/clairlemon/status/1413021640250707968?s=20

In @ydeigin's "takedown" he deigns to offer the citations to Bret's points that he should have included in the article itself. It appears his take is that "I should know what he said". The 1st flaw here is that even if I know what they misquote, they can always say "look more"

But now that we have Yuri's response, @Quillette you MUST correct the misquote in his article. By his own admission, he took a quote about "prevention" and misattributed it to "treatment". This is outright false, and must be corrected ASAP.

https://twitter.com/ydeigin/status/1413038042827444230?s=20

The author also misunderstood me asking for a citation for the claim that Tess Lawrie's article was "phenomenally insane" with me asking for a link to Lawrie's article. For his misunderstanding, he sent me back to... kindergarten?

https://twitter.com/ydeigin/status/1413042345042403335?s=20

Yuri's day ended with this masterpiece that I'll post here but I will note that since @EricRWeinstein retweeted it, has been heavily brigaded, so please don't just go and post more shit, he's pretty aware of people's opinion of it.

https://twitter.com/ydeigin/status/1413256116222533635?s=20

My own response, other than being baffled at what's driving people who are clearly able of high-level thinking to do basic misreadings, is to link to my research (and life) partner's thread about Quilette's mission and behavior:

https://twitter.com/Iseravi1/status/1413232419830845441?s=20

I've been a patreon subscriber of Quilette since its earliest days, after their pride-infested response to an excruciatingly detailed analysis of an article they should never have posted, I am no longer confident supporting them is a positive contribution.