1. Tesla gets its cobalt from Canada, known hotbed of slavery 2. But cobalt is fungible, so their batteries use as little as possible, and their new ones don't use any of it (see LFP) 3. "Family wealth questionably obtained" is of course repeating the fake emerald mine BS. See:
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…
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
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.
I want to investigate the Hector Carvallo situation. This 🧵is likely to become overlong and meandering as I'll try to figure things out in real-time, so if you want to help please tag along, and if you want "just the facts" best to just mute this one and wait for the summary.
I'm aware of 3 main articles I'll try to comb through, and I've read none of them closely. Please comment with other resources.
I'm realizing that the insitence on Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) as the only evidence that matters when deciding if a medicine/supplement should be used, structurally biases against generics, over-the-counter meds/supplements, and those with few side-effects. Here's why:🧵
The first class of problems has to do with wide availability when the subject of effectiveness on a new disease is raised.
1. Cheap OTC generics with few side-effects get used a lot in an emergency, where word of mouth spreads, making it much harder to form a control group.
2. These substances, when there's a suspicion they can be effective in an important disease, will spark many studies all over the world. This means there will be many small trials, of varying protocol/dosage and study quality. This is a big problem for two reasons:
First of all, it's important to say that while the tweet is far more carefully worded, the quote offered to the BBC, and not corrected when the article is shared, is far less careful, and basically false:
That aside, what's actually being said, is that if the bar is set to:
- Randomized Clinical Trial
- Endpoint is survival/death
- Result reaches p<0.05
All the trials with the above characteristics are "fake or did not actually happen as described".
I don't tend to list credentials, but in case this is read by academics, and this makes a difference, I'll mention that I have a PhD in Computing. Google says that the papers I wrote in my ~3 year publishing run have been cited 865 times and that my h-index is 11.
The BBC article is laced with the usual anti-ivm talking points I've addressed in other threads, and I will assume that they have been added by the journalist. In this thread, I'll focus on the fraud claims, which are sourced to the investigations of the group.
Let's start keeping track of Fauci calls for resignation, from mainstream voices, overt and covert, because I'm starting to notice a bit of a pattern. May be nothing, may be something. 🧵washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
This was a bit of a subtweet, also (hint: Collins was there for 12 years, Fauci has been there for 37).
Every day we get another step closer to intentionally causing backlash on all vaccines. 🤦 To define as "anti-vaxxers" ~40% of Americans, knowing the effect labels have on beliefs, is simply criminal. 🧵
What if... HealthNerd's investigation into IVM is actually vindicating IVM instead of proving it fraudulent? Well, A BMJ article claims we should expect 20% medical research to be Fraud. That's more than HN has found out of the studies he researched. Not randomized, but even so.
Yes, this is tongue in cheek. But this is the kind of background work he should have done before dragging the names of hundreds of researchers through the mud. Without a baseline, the implication is that we're looking for 0% bad papers, which is a fallacy. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate…
It's OK. It's not like there's a literal pandemic going on and many of these researchers are trying to help, but don't speak English as their first language, nor understand social media. After they get piled on, they'll get the message.