Wuhan Killer Sneeze (thanks Tea)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Slothrop said:
So what he does is demonstrate a cute (and as far as I can tell, fairly well known) effect where if you've got two populations, one of which is increasing in size while the other is decreasing, and neither of which is dying at a greater rate than the other, and if you do your "how many people from each population are dying every week" calculation rather naively without accounting for some reporting delays then you get an effect where it looks like the people in the population whose size is decreasing are dying at a greater rate than the people in the population whose size is increasing (basically because you're fiddling with the denominators). With the delay that he hypothesizes, the peak of this effect looks like about a fourfold reduction in deaths, and it drops off to being negligible once you get near stable populations. I haven't checked the working, but it sounds plausible enough.

He then picks some ONS data for non-covid deaths and demonstrates that you get a similar pattern, although this demonstration is at a level of "look, these graphs have different x axis scales but they're kind-of similar looking - that seems consistent with there being a similar delay!"

He then doesn't do anything to try to demonstrate that this accounts for the apparent effectiveness of covid vaccines, but puts words like "vaccine", "placebo" and "statistical illusion" prominently in the title and sort of waggles his eyebrows suggestively and leaves it to people with an agenda to push to do their stuff.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that's helpful.

So would I be right in saying that this effect, caused by a one-week delay in reporting deaths, is irrelevant when looking at cummulative data from a period of many months?
 
Slothrop

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
Mr. Tea said:
Thanks, that's helpful.

So would I be right in saying that this effect, caused by a one-week delay in reporting deaths, is irrelevant when looking at cummulative data from a period of many months?
Click to expand...

Not sure - I think it depends how you're calculating rates, ie number of deaths / population size. Looking at a population for which the vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations are more-or-less constant (eg over 60s since about June) should eliminate it. That sort of estimate is slightly shonky anyway, though, because vaccination status is probably going to correlate with some other relevant confounding factors. If you want reasonably robust estimates (like, actual numbers rather than heuristics that suggest that the things basically seem to be working pretty well at least against death and serious illness, which tbh seems to be pretty obvious to anyone who hasn't got their head up their arse) that takes that sort of stuff into account I'd suggest going and digging out some proper studies.
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
one of the things I'll miss once @sufi locks this thread in eight more pages: when mixed is convincingly called out on one of his charts or studies, and he then drops it like a hot potato to immediately pivot to yet another different, highly complex chart/study that's confusing to anyone who isn't a clinical researcher, starting the entire cycle anew.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Slothrop said:
Not sure - I think it depends how you're calculating rates, ie number of deaths / population size. Looking at a population for which the vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations are more-or-less constant (eg over 60s since about June) should eliminate it. That sort of estimate is slightly shonky anyway, though, because vaccination status is probably going to correlate with some other relevant confounding factors. If you want reasonably robust estimates (like, actual numbers rather than heuristics that suggest that the things basically seem to be working pretty well at least against death and serious illness, which tbh seems to be pretty obvious to anyone who hasn't got their head up their arse) that takes that sort of stuff into account I'd suggest going and digging out some proper studies.
Click to expand...
There, as they say, is the rub.
 
droid

droid

Well-known member
mixed_biscuits said:
Speaking of proper studies rather than gliberal memes:

The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article
Click to expand...

RETRACTED ARTICLE: The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article - The Journal of Antibiotics

www.nature.com www.nature.com

RETRACTED ARTICLE: The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article​

The Journal of Antibiotics (2021)Cite this article
The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the methodology and the conclusions of this review article. Postpublication review confirmed that while the review article appropriately describes the mechanism of action of ivermectin, the cited sources do not appear to show that there is clear clinical evidence of the effect of ivermectin for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the reliability of this review article. None of the authors agree to this retraction. The online version of this article contains the full text of the retracted article as Supplementary Information.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
droid said:

RETRACTED ARTICLE: The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article - The Journal of Antibiotics

www.nature.com www.nature.com

RETRACTED ARTICLE: The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article​

The Journal of Antibiotics (2021)Cite this article
The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the methodology and the conclusions of this review article. Postpublication review confirmed that while the review article appropriately describes the mechanism of action of ivermectin, the cited sources do not appear to show that there is clear clinical evidence of the effect of ivermectin for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the reliability of this review article. None of the authors agree to this retraction. The online version of this article contains the full text of the retracted article as Supplementary Information.
Click to expand...
Is this a record for rapidity of debunking?
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
droid said:

RETRACTED ARTICLE: The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article - The Journal of Antibiotics

www.nature.com www.nature.com

RETRACTED ARTICLE: The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article​

The Journal of Antibiotics (2021)Cite this article
The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the methodology and the conclusions of this review article. Postpublication review confirmed that while the review article appropriately describes the mechanism of action of ivermectin, the cited sources do not appear to show that there is clear clinical evidence of the effect of ivermectin for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the reliability of this review article. None of the authors agree to this retraction. The online version of this article contains the full text of the retracted article as Supplementary Information.
Click to expand...

good to know you're still keeping us honest, droid. hope all is well, we miss you.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
droid said:

RETRACTED ARTICLE: The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article - The Journal of Antibiotics

www.nature.com www.nature.com

RETRACTED ARTICLE: The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article​

The Journal of Antibiotics (2021)Cite this article
The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the methodology and the conclusions of this review article. Postpublication review confirmed that while the review article appropriately describes the mechanism of action of ivermectin, the cited sources do not appear to show that there is clear clinical evidence of the effect of ivermectin for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the reliability of this review article. None of the authors agree to this retraction. The online version of this article contains the full text of the retracted article as Supplementary Information.
Click to expand...
Weasel words, wholly symptomatic of the current pharmacopalypse
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
I see no-one has attempted to smear black cumin yet - doubtless because there are no copypasta memes to hand on their Facebook feeds.

btw These don't count as 'debunkings':
  • Dubiously funded 'Fact-checker' sites staffed by Arts-grad hacks writing to order
  • Controversial poorly reasoned retractions
  • Newspaper articles
  • Memes or slogans that have wormed their way into your brain by blunt trauma
 
Last edited:
Slothrop

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
Although to be fair, I'm not sure that even you give a fuck about it except as a pretext to waste other people's time by insisting that if they don't debunk yet another piece of nonsense then you'll somehow have won.
 
WashYourHands

WashYourHands

Cat Malogen
Guinea pig limping, multiple gunshot wounds to head and body, echoes of a pulse

not sure it can survive out in the open much longer like this
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Slothrop said:
Although to be fair, I'm not sure that even you give a fuck about it except as a pretext to waste other people's time by insisting that if they don't debunk yet another piece of nonsense then you'll somehow have won.
Click to expand...
If black cumin entered the public consciousness, you could use the subsequently supplied meme, "It's not for covid, it's for curry."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top