Very good analysis of the disgraceful meta-analysis. Well written and researched. How do so-called academic journals get away with publishing this medical misinformation? When this is over they will have to account to the public why they were complicit in withholding a cure for covid.
They will only have to account if we hold them to account. That means educating the public, and a lot of other steps. Everyone needs to participate to dismantle medical Lysenkoist garbage.
"These are not at all people who should handle data for publication, much less with influence in policy-making."
Even in the best of times:
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John R A. loannidis
Published: August 30, 2005 • https://doi.org/10 1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Abstract
Summary
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
An excellent analysis, Matthew. The dishonesty of these people is breathtaking. I'm doubting just incompetence, given the recent prior publication of the Lawrie paper.
Just caught one minor typo:
"so there was on real prospective/retrospective distinction."
That's been the way all of COVID has been. Someone publishes information that makes sense and suddenly the media starts pushing a counter narrative. I remember when this happened because LifeSite printed about the Lawrie paper, but the MEM published the Roman/Hernandez paper.
I'm glad I've found this site because it validates many of my suspicions with the hard math and analysis that I can only speculate about. I also like to follow wmbriggs.com
It has been withdrawn with a disputed claim of data manipulation. The story is outside of the bounds of any of hundreds of examples of data manipulation I've ever seen. I would not be surprised if we eventually find out that there is more beneath the surface of that story.
Great stuff mate. How to explain? My generous nature says they are just horribly arrogant, and having made their bed early against early treatment options they must continue on regardless of ethics and academic rigour. My cynical nature thinks they are on the payroll of someone globular pharmaceutical entity. My conspiracy theorist nature thinks the lead authors are Freemasons, which tbh makes the most sense.
Matthew: have you also run across the meta analysis of this little band of vaccine pushers? Kyle Sheldrick, Jack Lawrence, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, & James Haethers. All but Jack are Aussies.
Very good analysis of the disgraceful meta-analysis. Well written and researched. How do so-called academic journals get away with publishing this medical misinformation? When this is over they will have to account to the public why they were complicit in withholding a cure for covid.
They will only have to account if we hold them to account. That means educating the public, and a lot of other steps. Everyone needs to participate to dismantle medical Lysenkoist garbage.
"These are not at all people who should handle data for publication, much less with influence in policy-making."
Even in the best of times:
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John R A. loannidis
Published: August 30, 2005 • https://doi.org/10 1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Abstract
Summary
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
An excellent analysis, Matthew. The dishonesty of these people is breathtaking. I'm doubting just incompetence, given the recent prior publication of the Lawrie paper.
Just caught one minor typo:
"so there was on real prospective/retrospective distinction."
"on" should be "no".
That's been the way all of COVID has been. Someone publishes information that makes sense and suddenly the media starts pushing a counter narrative. I remember when this happened because LifeSite printed about the Lawrie paper, but the MEM published the Roman/Hernandez paper.
I'm glad I've found this site because it validates many of my suspicions with the hard math and analysis that I can only speculate about. I also like to follow wmbriggs.com
The Elgazzar study has been withdrawn for data manipulation https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w
It has been withdrawn with a disputed claim of data manipulation. The story is outside of the bounds of any of hundreds of examples of data manipulation I've ever seen. I would not be surprised if we eventually find out that there is more beneath the surface of that story.
A partisan politician's answer, not an intellectual's. Good luck fighting your "wars".
Great stuff mate. How to explain? My generous nature says they are just horribly arrogant, and having made their bed early against early treatment options they must continue on regardless of ethics and academic rigour. My cynical nature thinks they are on the payroll of someone globular pharmaceutical entity. My conspiracy theorist nature thinks the lead authors are Freemasons, which tbh makes the most sense.
Peruvian Freemasons?
They are on the payroll of an institute established at the University of Connecticut.
Matthew: have you also run across the meta analysis of this little band of vaccine pushers? Kyle Sheldrick, Jack Lawrence, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, & James Haethers. All but Jack are Aussies.
They first took apart the Elgazzar study out of Egypt & then did their meta-analysis. https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19-just-retracted/