It’s déjà vu all over again as @TracyBethHoeg does the same dumpster dive for Ontario’s “Adverse Events Following Immunization” (AEFI) reporting system that she did for VAERS. Naturally, there are problems. 🧵
As a brief reminder, Hoeg used the raw data of VAERS, despite its numerous disclaimers against doing so, allegedly to extract cases of myocarditis case investigators might have missed. It doesn’t go well. sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-of…
Turning her sights on Ontario, Hoeg doubles down on the mistake; this time not even doing the slightest investigation into Ontario’s AEFI reports (and by “slightest investigation” I mean reading the report) but instead using its raw, unadjudicated data to establish case rates.
Here @rubiconcapital shows the data from a Public Health Ontario Surveillance Report from which he derived the rate. Note: It’s since been updated to include up to October 10. publichealthontario.ca/-/media/docume…
Table A3 warns: “Note: Includes all reports of myocarditis or pericarditis identified through case level review (n=423) regardless of the reports meeting the Brighton Collaboration case definition for myocarditis or pericarditis.”
Is it too much to ask that either Hoeg or her source actually read the material they are drawing from?
Apparently so, because the report goes on to discuss these 423 raw reports and whether they meet the Brighton Collaboration case definition (given here) for myocarditis or pericarditis.
Only 320 do (110 out of 116 for myocarditis, 105 out of 192 for pericarditis and 105 out of 115 for perimyocarditis, myopericarditis or myocarditis/pericarditis). This brings us to Hoeg’s second problem.
Those 320 cases meet the definition of myocarditis or pericarditis & etc. But meeting the definition does not establish *causation*, a fact the report calls attention to on the very first page: the AEFIs described “do not necessarily have a causal relationship with the vaccine.”
The upshot is the 423 cases are all reported cases. Only 320 of these case are actually cases of either myocarditis or pericarditis & etc. and none of those 320 cases have a determined causal relationship to vaccination.
There is a still a further problem. Hoeg has not abandoned diving right back into the VAERS dumpster. Instead, she promises a revision.
For Hoeg's proposed revision, I have a suggestion: Read. The. Guidance.
I worried my thread had gone on too long. Turns out, it wasn't long enough. Thank you @justthefacts85 for calling out some unfortunate math.
.@ShiraDoronMD et al argue against universal masking in healthcare based on 2 claims: 1) transmission risk from HCWs w/out symptoms is low 2) vaccination is sufficienly protective against hospital-acquired infection.
These claims are both knowably, provably wrong.
@AnnalsofIM
🧵
To establish their first claim, that the risk of transmission from HCWs without symptoms is low, the authors cite two sources: a) Killingley and b) Tayyar.
But a) Killingley does NOT show presymptomatic transmission risk is small. What Killingley actually shows is that, what the authors pass off as "minimal presymptomatic shedding," is consistent with **44% of transmission occuring presymptomatically**.
In honor of @TracyBethHoeg’s new anti-mask propaganda/preprint, I compiled her Tweets on mask studies into a textbook I’m calling, “Confounders: A Matter of Convenience.” It’s an expose of Hoeg’s bad faith hypocrisy. 🧵
Here’s the title page with a table of contents.
CHAPTER I:
HOW TO PROTEST PRO-MASK STUDIES
It's easy! Just complain the conclusion doesn’t hold because the data is confounded! 1. Eg. The Boston Mask Study
The moral panic over school closures has left us with problems more intractable than they were pre-pandemic because now, to solve those problems, we first have to dispel lies. That school is a preventative to suicide is a reprehensible distortion, but it is not the only one. 🧵
There is the hysteria over how closures hurt minorities the most which obscures that, for minorities, school is the source of a problem: the school-to-prison pipeline. nytimes.com/2020/10/28/opi…
There is the hysteria that closures are causing obesity which obscures the problem of fatty, nutritionally bankrupt cafeteria food. nypost.com/2019/11/16/the…
Following a lead in @mehdirhasan's receipt-riddled expose, I looked into FL's deadly summers but in terms of excess deaths (Hasan uses C0VID deaths) in the 10 US states with the highest percentage of seniors. Tl;dr: DeSantis won't be using these stats on the campaign trail. 🧵
The long list of concerns downplayers coopted for the sake of opening schools and then quickly abandoned: learning loss that didn't carry over to C0VID related cognitive declines, newsinfo.inquirer.net/1639956/omicro…
Shenoy et al urge abandoning universal masking on the grounds masks have little benefit & some harm. Yesterday I showed they're wrong about benefits. Today I show they're wrong about harms. Their strongest evidence favors masks. The rest has little relation to their ambitions. 🧵
In making the case that masks harm, the authors use three sources.
In Cormier et al patients & providers rate their masked & unmasked encounters in terms of communication difficulties. Using scales from 1-5 (patients) or from 1-6 (providers) participants are asked about eg. listening effort, ability to connect, understand & recall.