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.
Hoeg’s Tweet references this from @rubiconcapital.
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.
@justthefacts85 With apologies to @jneill who I should have thanked earlier for his input on understanding Table A3 and crude reporting rates.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Loretta Torrago

Loretta Torrago Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Loretta_Torrago

15 Oct
1.
So the VE of 95% is in terms of hospitalizations only which is the only outcome he considers. Probably in terms of hospitalized or not, boosters might not move the needle much *if* boosters waned at a similar rate. Image
2.
But not everyone thinks of the 3rd shot as a booster but more as the final shot in a 3-dose regimen. If that’s right, there wouldn’t be the same waning after 3 that we see after 2.
3.
If the 3rd shot increased durability, then it reduces hospitalizations over whatever the time-frame to a actual booster (shot #4) would be. That adds up.
Faust also assumes myocarditis rates for 3rd shot = rates for 2nd shots which likely isn't true.
Read 6 tweets
9 Oct
If you’re like me, you raise a skeptical eye when @apsmunro is happy. So I took a look at this study and I’m not embarrassed to say: this myth is far from busted. 🧵
The study compares symptoms recorded by an app from periods of Alpha dominance to the period of Delta’s dominance. It purports to show Delta is no worse than Alpha when it comes to kids: either in terms disease burden (number of symptoms) or duration.
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
Describing the symptoms tracked, the authors tell us they “do not include some common paediatric co-morbidities (e.g., neurological or neuro-disability disorders).”
Read 30 tweets
6 Oct
Opening by calling quarantine “age old” as if, like leeching, it was largely quackery, @MonicaGandhi takes readers on a path of omissions & oversights before arriving, as if clandestinely, at a conclusion so sane, one suspects she is embarrassed by it.🧵
washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/1…
Despite its age, much like leeching, quarantine has a modern-day place. Gandhi concedes as much in a paragraph mixed with a variety of platitudes about costs and benefits.
Though Gandhi is correct that “in many cases quarantines are probably doing more harm than good”, “probably” carries a lot of weight given that cases where quarantine would do more harm than good are indistinguishable from those where quarantine wouldn’t.
Read 24 tweets
5 Oct
Getting "mild covid" does not preculde getting Long Covid, lung, brain or kidney damage. How is that ok?
Mild Covid and kidney damage.
jasn.asnjournals.org/content/early/…
Mild Covid and brain damage.
khou.com/article/news/h…
Read 4 tweets
12 Sep
Unhappy with the CDC’s paltry number of myocarditis cases attributable to mRNA vaccines, @TracyBethHoeg et al set out on the vast sea of VAERS in hopes of catching more fish by using "broader search and inclusion criteria" aka a bigger, but definitely not better, net. 🧵
Admirable if only for the nakedness of its ambition, the authors don’t hide that their aim is to “update” the CDC’s estimate,
or that, by “update” they mean “inflate”.
Read 19 tweets
21 Aug
This study by @TracyBethHoeg, @KrugAlli et al. reinvents the need for the adage "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" as a response to the authors’ novel approach “If you don’t have symptoms, you don’t have cases."🧵
bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjspor…
The study is allegedly about player-to-player transmission being contained by the protocols for youth ice hockey the authors develop. Alarm bells ring almost immediately when the authors introduce us to the study’s crew: a “volunteer epidemiologist”,
and other “neutral” parties.
Read 23 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(