This isn't "BOMBSHELL NEWS🚨🚨🚨" - it is abuse of data to arrive at a conclusion, and naked grifting. This tactic is very common in antivaccine activism and really scares people, so lets look at why its utter nonsense, and how to spot it in the wild. A thread 🧵
...1st thing to note is that this refers to 4th dose, typically given to elderly & immunocompromised; people who, all things being equal, are far more likely to fall severely ill than younger people. If you look at the data, the most deaths are in the 90+ groups: not surprising.
..in any case, headlines like "OMG MORE DEATHS IN VACCINATED PEOPLE!!!111!!" commit a statistical cardinal sin; the base-rate fallacy. The critical information is, just how many are vaccinated? In Australia, the answer is virtually everyone..
..unsurprisingly, when vast majority of population is vaccinated, majority of deaths will occur in that cohort - even when vaccines are extremely effective. Here's a quick simulation I knocked up of vaccines 80% and 95% effective at reducing hospitalisations - notice something?
..at a certain point, majority of deaths happen in vaccinated cohorts solely because almost everyone is vaccinated, and nothing is 100% effective! This kind of reporting by grifters neglects that base-rate: it deliberately obscures it to scare people, comparing apples to bananas
This, btw, is the same tactic used when UK papers were screaming about 2/3 of deaths being in vaccinated populations; they forgot 95% were vaccinated, meaning that just 5% of people accounted for 33% of deaths. I covered this before on insta.. instagram.com/p/CTebbfWsTwa/
It gets worse, not content with one major unedifying blunder, Peter Sweden heroically mangles cause-and-effect, and wrongly claims that no vaccines = 0% chance of hospitalisation. There are literally primary school children who could explain to him why this is absolute nonsense..
..your risk of hospitalisation and death is, by the by, much bloody higher if you're not vaccinated. Which is precisely why most of us are vaccinated. That COVID vaccines have saved millions of lives is something these spin artists tellingly obscure..
Vaccines are often victims of their own success for this reason: when they're effective, you don't even notice them. But do the folks spreading this nonsense actually know they're bending the data to support a dangerous fiction? I think they often do, and don't care
..in the comments to Peter's tweet, many point out precisely why he's wrong. As they have many times before. But they refuse to listen, & instead just torture data. I think here's a hint as to why: it is profitable. Millions of impressions, profitable substacks, huge audiences..
..spreading misinformation is both profitable, and garners people the currency of attention. Alex Berenson, a notorious anti-vaccine crank, has 10,000s of paid subscribers - recently lauded by Elon Musk, as @mehdirhasan wrote. Contrarianism is profitable
...The depressingly reality is that these people do not care about the truth: they care about getting clicks in, and don't give a damn about harms they cause. They start with a conclusion, and there's no data they won't bend to reach it. Especially as it benefits them. Be wary
I shall stop here, knowing full well that his corrective won't reach a fraction of the eyeballs that the original junk did, nor will it make me any money. But I do hope it's useful to someone, and reminds people that grifters thrive on scary claims and tortured data
Postscript: Axis labels displayed the wrong way in original tweet, corrected here for clarity...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let's be very clear about this tweet: it is a dog-whistle to an extreme, violent, anti-science rightwing, draped in flimsy 'ironic' plausible deniability. Musk does not give a damn about public health or rational discussion. He is showing you who he is - believe it
..he knows damn well that Fauci was the subject of a litany of extremist threats, like many others in science and health through the pandemic. This is not an innocent mistake, it is a signal to the very people that embraced violence rhetoric. We hear it.
...as if to prove a point, my mentions are flooded with racists, conspiracy theorists, MAGA hats, and science deniers praising Musk. The dog whistle was heard as intended.
With Elizabeth Holmes sentenced to 11+ years in prison, her deliberate fraud at Theranos is in spotlight. Less has been said about how her claims were impossible in theory, dangerous in practice - and how investors should have known. A thread on screening, stats, and greed 🧵
Firstly, there is no doubt that Holmes committed outright fraud; @JohnCarreyrou captures that excellently in his book. But consider the Edison, which Holmes insisted would screen for a litany of conditions from just a miniscule drop of blood, simultaneously. A good idea?
Answering that requires both ethical & statistical consideration. Precise number of tests offered was nebulous; on Theranos' now scrubbed website listed 240 testable conditions. Holmes herself used a figure of 200 tests on a single drop of blood. Let's start with ethical problems
In the event that twitter implodes entirely, I'll miss the thought-provoking interactions, but be less nostalgic over miasma of hate-mail, pile-ons, and disinformation this hellsite enabled. You'll find me here in interim instagram.com/david_robert_g…
...I think it's worth remembering while a nice idea, in practice twitter had serious problems, vectoring an awful lot of hate & poison. A problem perhaps soluble with strong moderation and good policy - but a petulant man-child like Elon Musk was only ever going to make it worse
...and of course, mastodon, which I have no idea about using... mstdn.social/@drg1985
60 years ago today on the 27th October 1962, human life on Earth came the closest it has ever come to a terrible ending. Everyone alive today owes their life to this handsome devil, and most of us don't even know his name. Let's change that - a thread 🧵
First, a little historical context - in October 1962, the Cuban Missile crisis erupted with USSR responding to American missiles in Italy and Turkey by spiriting missiles to Cuba. This stand-off is often considered the most dangerous moment of the cold war: that is not correct..
..for while Khrushchev & Kennedy were engaged in frantic talks to avert disaster, the real drama was playing out deep beneath the Atlantic Ocean, unbeknownst to either leader. Away from Moscow and Washington, a deadly game of cat & mouse had begun with terrible ramifications.
In less than 24 hours, a thread offering tips to avoid / fight cancer 'naturally' (mainly through diet⛳️) has gotten over 100k likes.
Sadly, the advice given is both wrong and dangerous, and *very* likely to cause harm.
A quick thread on why this is so misguided... 🧵
First ⛳️: stem cell quackery. No, you cannot boost stem cells with diet & nor would it likely be beneficial to do so (cancer stem cells are a thing too, btw) - this paper by @CaulfieldTim shows such claims are common, but utter nonsense futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/rm…
Second ⛳️: no, you cannot hack your DNA, and anyone who thinks you can doesn't understand DNA. DNA repair is a complex process, but you have NOTHING to do with it. It evolved millions of years before humans even existed; eating mangos isn't going to change any of that...
Remember the preprint that claimed COVID vaccines caused significant adverse effects, beloved by contrarians? Well it's now been published in an @ElsevierConnect journal - it *really* shouldn't have been, as it remains hot flaming garbage. Here's why...
STRAP IN, IT'S GRIM.. 🧵
..so the authors basically took safety data from Pfizer and Moderna, and ran a post-hoc and totally arbitrary analysis on it. And lo and behold, they claimed to find harms. Only problem? It was complete tosh, as @JHowardBrainMD explained at the time.. sciencebasedmedicine.org/dont-do-this/
..In the most basic sense, the authors shuffled around data until they got the seeming illusion of a result that fringe figures loved. But this was utter bunk; firstly, every comparison you run increases the chance of a spurious findings. As a famous economist once said...