A 🧵 of cases where data has been withheld or updates suspended, explicitly because the Authorities did not want the Commoners to "misunderstand" and "misinterpret" it.
As usual, I'll start with the ones I know, and please respond with more cases you are aware of.
5. US OSHA (Worker safety agency)
"OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination... will not enforce... recordings requirements to require any employers to record worker side-effects from vaccination"
Let's do this slowly for the people in the back: @BretWeinstein was commenting on a piece by Scott Alexander which picked through many ivm RCTs and did a meta-analysis to show there is a very weak signal. Then he threw the worms hypothesis on top to explain the signal.
This is a huge shift in epistemic standards. We're going from published, most peer reviewed, randomized controlled trials, many of which have been pored over by opposing groups, and trying to explain them away with a hypothesis that existed as a set of tweets. Epistemic whiplash.
As for my position on Ιvermectin, it's been consistent since the summer. We don't know if it works or not because *appropriately sized studies with correct dosing and timing* aren't being done. But it's safe enough that it's not worth not giving.
You can see a prior review of the evidence I did a couple of months back here, showing that there is a clear, if uncertain, signal of efficacy. doyourownresearch.substack.com/p/a-conflict-o…
The real scandal is that the proper authorities don't seem interested in drugs like this, or even fluvoxamine, which has even stronger data.
Run a trial with the same parameters as Paxlovid or Molnupiravir. It can't be impossible, it's been already done for those medicines.
Briefly, an antiviral started avg 5.1 days after symptom onset, with a primary endpoint that is triggered 3.1 days after start of treatment, when treatment is for 5 days, will be almost impossible to show benefit.
The avg patient didn't even have time to complete the treatment.
In the case of Paxlovid, the average patient in this trial would not even have been eligible to receive Paxlovid, since they would have been deemed "too late". fda.gov/media/155050/d…
True. It only prevented death (3 vs 10) and ICU admission (4 vs 10). But who cares about that if it doesn't prevent... (*checks notes*) drop in O2 levels below 95%?
Did anyone claim it did that?
Read the results of the study yourselves and then the conclusions... 🙄
Some required reading for all those playing with words like "statistically significant" without any understanding that those words have a specific technical meaning that is not the same thing as what we mean by "significant" in everyday life.
The trial had decent dosing and recommended taking the medicine with a meal, which is good practice. On the minus side, people were enrolled 5.1 days after symptoms. Which means the average patient would've been excluded from the Paxlovid & Molnupiravir trials for being too late.
How much spike protein is produced in the body as a result of mRNA vaccination and how does it differ from ancestral SARS-CoV-2 spike? This will be one of the most important questions to answer moving forward. It will tell us a lot about the side-effects, among other things. 1/
I have a question for the stats-savvy people among us.
It will take a little bit of setup first, though. 🧵
In the paper "The Rise and Fall of Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment and Prevention of COVID-19"
TOGETHER trial authors report it was stopped "for futility" because of this result: (risk ratio: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.45–2.21)