Share this page!

David R Tomlinson 💙 Profile picture
Twitter logo
20 Nov, 4 tweets, 1 min read
Problem: RTAs kill drivers

Mechanism: High velocity injuries

Physical laws-based fix: A seat belt

Null hypothesis: A seat belt is w/o effect on RTA death

Randomise drivers: Unblinded=flaw (may affect driver behaviour)

Start RCT

Pre-specified interim analysis shows benefit…
Problem: RTAs kill passengers

Mechanism: High velocity injuries

Physical laws-based fix: A passenger seat belt

Null hypothesis: A passenger seat belt is w/o effect on RTA death

Randomise passengers: Unblinded=flaw (may affect driver behaviour)

…seriously?
Universally applicable physical laws are the ‘highest order of evidence’.

Engineers can help ‘fix’ the problem, based on physical laws.

Different engineering ‘fixes’ will have trade-offs: cost, comfort, efficacy; materials (CO2 impact / recycling options) etc.
RCTs are only as ‘good’ as the methods allow them to be.

And most people don’t seem to give a 💩 about methods: either not well enough described, or not possible to adequately describe, therefore making RCT methods flawed & not reproducible.

So a whole load of RCTs are utter 💩

• • •

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

Keep Current with David R Tomlinson 💙

David R Tomlinson 💙 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 @DRTomlinsonEP

David R Tomlinson 💙 Profile picture
22 Nov
🚨 NEW 🇬🇧

Guidance on IP&C for seasonal respiratory infections including SARS-CoV-2

Welcome to the world of SEASONAL SARS2 [does this sound more 'cuddly' to you?] & alternative reality according to the IPC Cell.

🧵

gov.uk/government/pub…
Hot on the heels of the new campaign where dCMO @Thomas_Waite states:

'People with COVID-19 release virus particles into the air whenever they speak, breathe or cough & these can linger in unventilated settings.'

Will the IPC Cell sustain the AGP myth?

gov.uk/government/new…
Reviewing this on the fly...

'This guidance is intended to prevent transmission of seasonal respiratory viral infections focussing on influenza, SARS-CoV-2, & respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in health & care settings'

Nice tactic: Try to remove focus on SARS2 alone
Read 27 tweets
David R Tomlinson 💙 Profile picture
18 Nov
@WHO director of communications suggests that we need 'a consensus on terminology'; i.e. meaning of the word 'airborne'.

Logical possibilities:

1. She's right: 'airborne' has so many meanings as to render its use invalid.

2. She's wrong: 'airborne' has a single, clear meaning.
🚨 Dictionary evidence

Does this indicate multiple, potentially conflicting meanings, or a single, clear meaning?
🚨 Evidence from WHO teams' use

2014: IPC of epidemic & pandemic-prone acute respiratory infections in health care

'The spread of an infectious agent caused by the dissemination of droplet nuclei that remain infectious when suspended in air over long distances and time. (9)'
Read 11 tweets
David R Tomlinson 💙 Profile picture
18 Nov
Coronavirus: how to stay safe and help prevent the spread - GOV.UK

This guidance needs to be reported for misinformation.

As ever during this pandemic, the 🇬🇧 medico-political complex display an aversion to reporting empirical truths. gov.uk/guidance/covid…
THE GOOD

✅ ‘Airborne transmission is a very significant way that the virus circulates.’

Correct: aerosols are formed & exhaled during breathing, speech, singing, coughing & sneezing.

Can you live without breathing? Image
THE BAD

☣️ Symptoms requiring PCR testing STILL reflect the BS affirmed by @CMO_England in May 2020 based on data marred by selection bias: ISARICA4.

These data should NEVER have been used to prop up erroneously narrow test criteria.
@ProfCalumSemple now agrees: BMJ, July 2021! Image
Read 7 tweets
David R Tomlinson 💙 Profile picture
18 Nov
Canada admits aerosols are major source of COVID-19 transmission after nearly two years of denying it wsws.org/en/articles/20…
‘The PHAC’s belated admission constitutes a devastating indictment of the political establishment’s prioritization of corporate profits over human life, which has gone hand-in-hand with a systematic repudiation of a science-based response to the virus.’ @trishgreenhalgh @Ozbilgin
Guidance change ‘on the quiet’: sound familiar?
@doctorsoumya @mvankerkhove @DrMikeRyan @DrTedros ImageImage
Read 5 tweets
David R Tomlinson 💙 Profile picture
17 Nov
'Bold action is now needed to ensure that the science of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is freed from the shackles of historical errors, scientific vested interests, ideological manipulation & policy satisficing.'
authorea.com/users/316109/a…
Thank you @trishgreenhalgh & @Ozbilgin 🙏💙 Image
'Policymakers should actively seek to broaden the scientific inside track to support interdisciplinarity & pluralism as a route to better policies, greater accountability & a reduction in the huge inequities that the pandemic has generated.' @kprather88
authorea.com/users/316109/a…
@microlabdoc @mjb302 @Linzofm87 @helenh49 @danielgoyal @AlisonGeorge10 @jljcolorado @DFisman @CPita3 @YouAreLobbyLud @NjbBari3 @ahmedaftab68 @odonohue_steph @HuffmanLabDU @linseymarr @Don_Milton @drkristenkc @Iamgoingtosleep @akm5376 @healthyheating @theAliceRoberts @fgodlee
Read 4 tweets
David R Tomlinson 💙 Profile picture
16 Nov
If true, why would you allow the Chair of the @WHO IPC R&D Expert Group for COVID-19 to co-author & release a preprint which denies airborne transmission?

Version 2 was even released 24hrs BEFORE your front page changed: WHO's first overt acceptance of aerosol transmission! Image
@doctorsoumya were you aware that in this same airborne-denial preprint, Dr Conly [Chair of the @WHO IPC R&D Expert Group for COVID-19] et al attempt to re-write history?

🚨 They basically try to undermine the concept that SARS1 was airborne, contradicting the WHO stance on SARS ImageImageImage
@doctorsoumya were you aware that in this same airborne-denial preprint, Dr Conly et al attempt to re-write the scientific record on aerosol creation by humans?

They claim that aerosol creation [beyond AGPs] is as easy & likely as putting a human into orbit.

Is this acceptable? ImageImageImageImage
Read 5 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

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @DRTomlinsonEP has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @DRTomlinsonEP!

Read all threads by @DRTomlinsonEP

:(