I am sorry to say that clinicians don't know what evidence is. And YES, you ARE an idiot if you reply that RCTs are the pinnacle of scientific methodology. Nobody in aerospace safety or automobile safety uses RCTs. Einstein's theory of relativity has never been subjected to RCTs
There is no doubt about this: the idea that all science progresses through RCTs is a MASSIVE lie. If you showed this pyramid to physicists, they would laugh at you. In physics and engineering, the ability of your model to make correct predictions is considered more important
Because the biological sciences are primitive, we are forced into the crude empiricism of RCTs. But aerosol science is more about physics and engineering, where predictive mathematical modelling remains valid. It isn't necessary to be abjectly reduced to primitive empiricism
Precedents for biomedical principles of physical methods of prevention exist, which were established without RCTs eg condoms for HIV, water sanitation systems for cholera. There are no RCTs either for parachutes because you can use predictive mathematical modelling
RCT advocates said there were no RCTs of parachutes because of the magnitude of effect. That too is a massive LIE! It is because you can use primary mathematical modelling and physics to establish safety without being reduced to doing a pathetic RCT
Idiots demanding RCTs for condom use to prevent HIV or of respirators for COVID transmission are like fools who demand RCTs of parachutes with a placebo arm who jump out of their plane with a placebo parachute
The classic example of predictive modelling as the basis of good scientific method is how Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted the curvature of light, making a star visible during a solar eclipse. In 1919, he was proven right (hint: no RCT) earthsky.org/human-world/ma…
This is not to say physicists and engineers don't do empirical testing of predictive models. Hint: they do. But sorry, dear RCT idiot, there are no people involved and no control arm. Same laboratory crash testing principles apply to respirators
Refusing to deploy the best high-grade masks that have passed laboratory crash testing is like refusing to get on board a commercial airline because aerospace safety principles aren't tested by RCTs
Any idiots who still want to say all science progresses by RCTs must consider that the engineering and physics (eg quantum mechanics) underlying the processor on their computer aren't tested by RCTs. If you don't believe your computer works because of this, stop using it…NOW!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I was always suspicious of the thousands of freshly minted clichéd Canadian trucker convoy and MAGA accounts pushing anti-vaxx propaganda. You'd block a thousand only to have a thousand more appear. They'd all repeat the same set of messages over and over.
We clinicians are naive. All we could do in reply to the misinformation campaign was quote some RCT as though it were a scientific debate, when really it was an act of war. Yes, a proxy war waged by atypical means, but a war nonetheless.
As they got the UK to shoot itself in the foot with Brexit, the troll farms politicised the bipartisan issue of vaccination. The result was a civil war waged with biological agents, causing an enormous mortality disparity between left and right.
The paper is now out in @Nature after I tweeted on this oral presentation @ISTH 2023 by @AkassoglouLab. Fibrin/fibrinogen may be a therapeutic target in СОVΙD neuropathology. Link in next tweet.
“...results reveal a role for fibrinogen as a SARS-CoV-2 spike-binding protein accelerating the formation of abnormal clots with increased inflammatory activity”…“fibrin-targeting immunotherapy suppresses SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis”.
From an #immunothrombosis perspective, this paper now shows fibrinogen to be a far more critical player in this field than previously thought. We used to focus more on contact, TF, and thrombin but now must look further downstream in the fibrinogenesis/fibrinolysis pathways too.
It's not so bad a comparison if you accept that to get a similar “depletion of the susceptibles” by a Darwinian evolutionary mechanism, you'd have to deplete 2-400M vulnerable pheno-/genotypes from the pool.
It's always assumed that “evolve to become milder” means that the virus evolves, when it is just as likely that humans are “evolving” via a survival mechanism involving “depletion of the susceptibles”, leaving only those less prone to a lethal outcome. This, too, is evolution.
GBD types would likely argue that intervention to halt the depletion of the susceptibles is a perversion of the natural selection process and a crime. By opposing it, we are simply prolonging the pandemic.
And this week's Grand Rounds “just a cold” is another young patient with enterovirus-induced fulminant myocarditis needing intubation, ECMO, and an Impella LVAD. I've never seen so many severe post-infectious complications presented in my life.
Last week's Grand Round? Another “just a cold” with Mycoplasma in a paediatric patient who developed encephalopathy, needing IV pulse methylprednisolone and IVIg. It's like every week we see a new case of previously rare infectious complications in young patients.
Another Grand Rounds case. A pregnant woman with severe cardiomyopathy caused by a combined adenovirus and enterovirus infections. Required ECMO.
Subjecting trial subjects to wearing surgical mаsks against an airborne virus is like running a bike helmet RCT with subjects in Tupperware helmets that weren't designed for that purpose. “But we don't know it doesn't work until we run an RCT” isn't good enough.
“But there was a 30% reduction in head injuries in the Tupperware group vs. placebo.” Not good enough! In a high-risk scenario for major head injury, a Tupperware helmet won't do. The magnitude of risk test subjects were exposed to needs investigation and quantification.
Non-pharmaceutical physical protective devices are subject to engineering standards of proof of efficacy. In the case of helmets, that means crash testing in a lab to see how they fare in high-risk situations that live subjects can't be exposed to. helmet.beam.vt.edu/lab.html
A reminder that there was once a titanic struggle between contagionists vs miasmatists over the mechanism of transmission of cholera before the need to cleanse the water of waterborne pathogens was accepted. We are going through a similar struggle today, fighting for clean air. abc.net.au/news/2024-07-3…
If you want to read about how divisive the debates between the contagionists and miasmatists was, you should read “Death in Hamburg” by @RichardEvans36. They didn't need Twitter back then to be almost reduced to pistols at dawn.