The trial says (implies) that it's using "shared control patients". In the "recruitment over time" slide, it shows that the placebo group was recruited in both "stages". Does this mean placebo patients from either stage were used to form control groups for each drug tested?
It also says (last bullet) that this is a "planned interim analysis of the fluvoxamine arm with the data cut from August 2nd, 2021". Does this mean the trial isn't done? What's the rationale for sharing data on other drugs if this was supposed to be about fluvoxamine?
I'm also confused about point 2 in the inclusion criteria. It says the patient has to present at an outpatient setting with acute clinical condition, symptoms beginning within 7 days of the screening. 1. What is the screening?
2. This seems to involve 3 dates: "screening, symptoms begin, presenting to outpatient". It tells us the gap between the first and second can be upto 7, but what about the third? 3. What is meant by "acute clinical condition"?
Am I reading this correctly that there were two IVM trials, one "low dose" and one "high dose"? If so, any explanation for why is it describing only one in the slides? Also, any explanation for why the fluvoxamine trial is longer?
In the ivermectin slide, there is this analysis, calculating Pr(Superiority), which comes out as 76% in favor of ivermectin. What kind of analysis is this? What is the appropriate way to understand these findings?
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This Ben Shapiro/Dave Rubin clip is one of the most important recorded interactions for people who care about hypocrisy in the public sphere.
Thread 𧡠with some thoughts below.
First, Shapiro makes the argument that Daily Wire is a publisher (like a magazine or a newspaper) not a platform (like locals).
Interestingly, he implies that the Daily Wire was *subsidizing* Candace Owens. This would imply they were taking a financial loss to have her there.
Shapiro and Rubin, however, have also been massive critics of cancel culture. How did cancel culture get its name? From a campaign to cancel The Colbert Report over a tweet. Much of cancel culture is about inflicting professional harm for bad opinions. newyorker.com/news/news-deskβ¦
At this point I treat Scott Alexander's writing as an infohazzard. Unless you are willing to check his facts and citations, it is probably inadvisable to read his material, as it is constructed to build a compelling narrative.
But watch the lemmings line up and jump off a cliff, obviously taking Scott Alexander, who has already admitted to falsely accusing multiple scientists, at his word.
Unless and until Scott Alexander commits to adopting a robust editorial process where blatant errors that are reported to him are corrected promptly, his work should be read as fiction "based on a real story, sorta".
To coin a term, this FDA tweet was a "narrative scaffold". After the narrative solidifies, it doesn't matter if the scaffold is taken down. Nobody will remember how things started anyway.
It's a synchronization signal for the elites to line up and promote the approved narrative. Once all the relevant people are committed, opponents' reputations destroyed, the original signal can go away, and the hive mind will continue singing to the same tune.
Other examples of narrative scaffolds? Where to start.
For one, the Steele dossier that led to the years and years of Russiagate garbage.
Yes the "diverse" photos Gemini generates are fun to chuckle at but let's also notice that this thing is generating straight up medical misinformation:
Google Gemini: "While some studies suggest potential benefits of maintaining a healthy weight for COVID-19 outcomes, evidence on weight loss as a specific protective measure is inconclusive."
Google Gemini: "There's no evidence that the spike protein in COVID-19 vaccines is directly cytotoxic. These vaccines only contain the genetic instructions for making the protein, not the fully formed protein itself."
I would like to use the occasion of this clip to remind everyone that the TOGETHER trial has still not released the raw data as it promised to do in its journal submission.
All the big name accounts complaining about fraudulent ivm studies have said NOTHING about this scandal.
I even offered Scott Alexander $25k of my own money if he would help get it released and he didn't move a finger.
Following the ivm rabbit hole has been the fastest way to find out that practically nobody from the medical establishment cares about the actual facts on the ground. Just posturing and repeating the hive mind talking points.
Thank God for whistleblowers, I have gotten access to the interim analyses from this trial, and when I publish them, the fraudulent nature of its conduct will be clear to anyone who cares to know about it.