1. This was done as a response to *someone* claiming that there was no temporal relationship between vaccination and adverse events 2. We have removed j&j as it's single shot 3. The data is up to a cutoff date I will try to find precisely
4. There is about 15% more dose 1s administered, but the delta is closer to 50%. 5. As always, this is VAERS data and therefore not necessarily causal 6. That said, comparing dose 1 to dose 2 is a VAERS to VAERS comparison, so hard to know why there would be such a difference
7. Most of the hard work on this was done by @Volishun btw. I was more of an "idea guy" 🤣
I'm seeing people make the obvious counter-arguments about how VAERS is self-reported, and how it shows that people are more likely to self-report closer to the vaccination date. The question is why people self-report (their deaths?!) 50% more after the 1st dose than the 2nd.
Hold on. We found an issue with the analysis (though I suspect it won't make a massive change, but an update will be incoming soon).
Updated charts, including split between pfizer and moderna.
Our original chart at the top of the thread was showing time to symptom onset, where the symptom led to death. These updated charts are showing time to death. since we're mostly interested in dose 1/2 comparison, there's not much change, but always important to be precise.
I've been hinting in various conversations about a distributed news aggregator design I've been sitting on for about a decade or so. I'll describe it here so I have somewhere to point to, for feedback, and if I never get a chance to build it, maybe it will inspire someone else.🧵
My quest begun with writing this paper back in 2009. We didn't know about the bitcoin white paper that had gotten released a months earlier, but we sketched out several pieces of what came out of the crypto ecosystem over the next dozen years. arxiv.org/abs/0907.2485
The obvious weakness was governance in the human layer. So long as moderation of any community can't be distributed, all the distributed infrastructure in the world won't help you when your Admins with God Powers get subjected to rubber hose cryptanalysis. h-i-r.net/2009/02/rubber…
There's "The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article" by Asiya Kamber Zaidi & Puya Dehgani-Mobaraki that was pulled by the editor... nature.com/articles/s4142…
There's Tess Lawrie's meta-analysis which got rejected by the Lancet AFTER passing peer review, costing months of delay until it passed review again at a different journal. The interview video where she described the events has been pulled down...
I've never really answered the critics of @BetterSkeptics first challenge in one place, so I should probably write this down so I can refer people to it in the future. 🧵
The criticism that has been coming our way should have been somewhat expected, given that in any sensemaking exercise where there's significant disagreement, someone will feel like their side was not fairly represented. That said, it may well be that they were right. Let's see:
Before we get into it, it's important to explain that the main audience for the result of the challenge was myself. Having found the Quillette criticism to be of poor quality, I wanted to see what the *strongest* criticism would possibly be, as I don't want to believe falsehoods.
A big reason pulling me into this whole debate around the pandemic is being baffled by behaviors of people like Sam. Having had high esteem for him, it was important to me to "unpack" our disagreement, to make sure I haven't lost my mind.
I started by doing a comment thread on his podcast with Eric Topol, which, as you will discover, left me deeply unsatisfied.
That was, it turns out, a bad start, as he ended up calling me out in his AMA 17, never having spoken to me before and ended up completely straw-manning my argument. Completely out of character for the Sam Harris of old.