Tweet

@BretWeinstein

@EricRWeinstein

@unfollowbugbot

@8adlucem

More from @alexandrosM

Alexandros Marinos

@alexandrosM

10 Oct

I'm realizing that the insitence on Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) as the only evidence that matters when deciding if a medicine/supplement should be used, structurally biases against generics, over-the-counter meds/supplements, and those with few side-effects. Here's why:🧵

The first class of problems has to do with wide availability when the subject of effectiveness on a new disease is raised.

1. Cheap OTC generics with few side-effects get used a lot in an emergency, where word of mouth spreads, making it much harder to form a control group.

2. These substances, when there's a suspicion they can be effective in an important disease, will spark many studies all over the world. This means there will be many small trials, of varying protocol/dosage and study quality. This is a big problem for two reasons:

Read 5 tweets

Alexandros Marinos

@alexandrosM

9 Oct

https://twitter.com/K_Sheldrick/status/1445914957942444033

I've criticized Kyle's group for not sharing the data they use to make sweeping statements. I'll demonstrate why this matters:🧵

Take this quote:"Every randomised trial that found a statistically significant benefit for survival was fake or did not actually happen as described."

https://twitter.com/K_Sheldrick/status/1445914957942444033

First of all, it's important to say that while the tweet is far more carefully worded, the quote offered to the BBC, and not corrected when the article is shared, is far less careful, and basically false:

That aside, what's actually being said, is that if the bar is set to:

- Randomized Clinical Trial
- Endpoint is survival/death
- Result reaches p<0.05

All the trials with the above characteristics are "fake or did not actually happen as described".

Read 31 tweets

Alexandros Marinos

@alexandrosM

8 Oct

@GidMK

Is Ivermectin enthusiasm research founded upon fraudulent research?🧵

This investigation from the BBC, citing research by @GidMK @sTeamTraen @JackMLawrence @K_Sheldrick and @jamesheathers, claims the answer is yes.

Let's dive in and see what we find. bbc.com/news/health-58…

I don't tend to list credentials, but in case this is read by academics, and this makes a difference, I'll mention that I have a PhD in Computing. Google says that the papers I wrote in my ~3 year publishing run have been cited 865 times and that my h-index is 11.

The BBC article is laced with the usual anti-ivm talking points I've addressed in other threads, and I will assume that they have been added by the journalist. In this thread, I'll focus on the fraud claims, which are sourced to the investigations of the group.

Read 34 tweets

Alexandros Marinos

@alexandrosM

7 Oct

Let's start keeping track of Fauci calls for resignation, from mainstream voices, overt and covert, because I'm starting to notice a bit of a pattern. May be nothing, may be something. 🧵washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…

https://twitter.com/WSJPolitics/status/1445574451408433162?s=20

This was a bit of a subtweet, also (hint: Collins was there for 12 years, Fauci has been there for 37).

https://twitter.com/WSJPolitics/status/1445574451408433162?s=20

https://twitter.com/hughhewitt/status/1443346443675316229?s=20

Then there was this shambles of an interview...

https://twitter.com/hughhewitt/status/1443346443675316229?s=20

Read 5 tweets

Alexandros Marinos

@alexandrosM

6 Oct

https://twitter.com/TheMattMacGyver/status/1445805176904773639

Every day we get another step closer to intentionally causing backlash on all vaccines. 🤦 To define as "anti-vaxxers" ~40% of Americans, knowing the effect labels have on beliefs, is simply criminal. 🧵

https://twitter.com/TheMattMacGyver/status/1445805176904773639

Here's the detailed numbers if you want to see them.

Labeling is a typical strategy used in bullying and the labels themselves can have an effect on an individual's behavior. psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2020-…

Read 12 tweets

Alexandros Marinos

@alexandrosM

5 Oct

https://twitter.com/alexandrosM/status/1445202282937667593

What if... HealthNerd's investigation into IVM is actually vindicating IVM instead of proving it fraudulent? Well, A BMJ article claims we should expect 20% medical research to be Fraud. That's more than HN has found out of the studies he researched. Not randomized, but even so.

https://twitter.com/alexandrosM/status/1445202282937667593

Yes, this is tongue in cheek. But this is the kind of background work he should have done before dragging the names of hundreds of researchers through the mud. Without a baseline, the implication is that we're looking for 0% bad papers, which is a fallacy. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate…

https://twitter.com/Francin2798/status/1445206589485445121?s=19

It's OK. It's not like there's a literal pandemic going on and many of these researchers are trying to help, but don't speak English as their first language, nor understand social media. After they get piled on, they'll get the message.

https://twitter.com/Francin2798/status/1445206589485445121?s=19

Read 5 tweets

Share this page!

Alexandros Marinos

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @alexandrosM

Alexandros Marinos

Alexandros Marinos

Alexandros Marinos

Alexandros Marinos

Alexandros Marinos

Alexandros Marinos

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?