It is demonstrably false to claim that intubation has led to more deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic, but this has not stopped Professor Ioannidis making the claim repeatedly
I also find the persistent myth that Prof Ioannidis promotes that death certification has lead to more Covid-19 deaths rather odd. I cannot find any basis for this in the literature he cites
For example, in this recent paper he makes the same claim and cites two papers. One is simply a guide to death certification, and not really an assessment of errors
The second paper (reference 3) actually appears to disagree with the statement being made here - the paper identified that the primary issue with death certification was missing information, not adding incorrect information
On top of this, citation 30, which is used to support the claim that financial incentives change death figures, doesn't really make this claim - the incentive is only for healthcare workers who die from COVID-19, who represent a tiny fraction of all death certificates
Based on the literature Prof Ioannidis cites, it seems more reasonable to argue that death certification errors are likely to lead to an undercount in Covid-19 deaths, and indeed this appears to have happened in many places in the world
I cannot believe the question was asked, and the response is even more absurd
No, the pandemic is not a "social construct" what utter garbage
Even the explanation of why the pandemic is "socially constructed" is total nonsense. That we may have had a different response without technology does not mean that what we are doing now is "constructed" in a philosophical sense
I mean, if the pandemic had happened 3 decades ago it's almost certain that the death toll would be FAR higher, so we might have actually had a MORE intensive regulatory response
The basic issue is that science works on trust. We assume that no one would ever fake a study, because it's ethically and morally indefensible, and work with that
Which makes it very easy for people to fake studies
However, people generally aren't very good at faking things. There are dozens of very simple checks you can run on data to see if it's real
2/10 The claim is pretty simple - Uttar Pradesh uses ivermectin a lot, therefore it's doing well on COVID as opposed to places that don't use ivermectin. Just look at the graphics!
3/10 This is quite transparent nonsense and it's easy to see why. Firstly, Uttar Pradesh officially incorporated ivermectin into treatment protocols and started using it in hospitals in Aug/Sept 2020
Today I decided to look at some of the terrible observational studies on ivermectin that I've mostly ignored, and wow
So far, one with Cohen's d of 2, another with d of 2.9
These are just...gibberish
In one study, every single person in the ivermectin group got better immediately, and every person in the control got much, much worse. In another, 100% of the ivermectin group stayed in hospital for a shorter amount of time than the control
These studies are just so wildly implausible that it's hard to understand why no one has raised these questions before. Either a single ivermectin pill entirely cures COVID or there's something fishy there
"There's enough behind ivermectin for COVID-19 that there must be something there"
This is a point that I find fascinating 🧵
See, thing is, most of the studies that supported the idea that there is a large benefit for ivermectin appear to be either fraudulent or so poorly conducted that they might as well be fake
On the other hand, the only large, well conducted trials seem to find either no benefit or at best quite a modest one
To be clear, this is very uncertain, but even at the lower bound of costs for largely asymptomatic young people, vaccines are cheaper than infections in the US
If 50% of all infections are fully asymptomatic, and most infections are in young people, the median cost of a COVID-19 infection might be as low as $100-$200 USD, which is still many times the cost of a vaccine 🤷♂️