Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
GidMK's profile
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Verified account
@GidMK

Tweets

Health NerdVerified account

@GidMK

Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him

Sydney, New South Wales
theguardian.com/profile/gideon…
Joined November 2015

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 29 Sep 2020
      Replying to @Rootclaim @saarwilf

      I mean, that's not true and it mostly misses the point so...I disagree. It really comes back to the fact that a tiny pilot study doesn't form a strong basis for decision-making

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    2. Saar Wilf‏ @saarwilf 29 Sep 2020
      Replying to @GidMK @Rootclaim

      You need to think risk/reward. What is the probability that the study is completely wrong, what is the risk of treatment, and weigh those to make a decision with positive expected impact on patient health.

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 29 Sep 2020
      Replying to @saarwilf @Rootclaim

      I always find that attitude striking. HCQ was recommended on the same basis, and with arguably much better evidence, and now we know it doesn't work at all and we've wasted vast sums and potentially harmed millions. It is not such an easy either/or, I think

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    4. Saar Wilf‏ @saarwilf 29 Sep 2020
      Replying to @GidMK @Rootclaim

      HCQ was exactly how not to do science. No RCT, no history of effectiveness against respiratory viruses, no multiple correlation studies, no causal models, no clear mechanism of action. It's like rejecting vaccines, because doctors once used leeches and it failed.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    5. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 29 Sep 2020
      Replying to @saarwilf @Rootclaim

      The HCQ proponents would argue precisely the opposite. And vitamin D has a long, long history of being touted as a cure for every disease under the sun and failing to show a benefit in rigorous RCTs

      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    6. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 29 Sep 2020
      Replying to @GidMK @saarwilf @Rootclaim

      In fact, taking the most robust evidence from a large systematic review of thousands of patients on vitamin D prior to the pandemic, there is a modest reduction in the rate of respiratory infections with vit D supplementation, but no benefit to any hard outcomes like death

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    7. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 29 Sep 2020
      Replying to @GidMK @saarwilf @Rootclaim

      But, and this is crucial, I don't think we can take it as writ that evidence applying to RTIs, which are caused by a plethora of viruses, will be true for COVID-19. So we need evidence - GOOD evidence - or we're mostly just flying blind

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    8. Saar Wilf‏ @saarwilf 29 Sep 2020
      Replying to @GidMK @Rootclaim

      Of course, this is just part of the puzzle. Please read through the summary I sent you. There is nothing remotely close to that on HCQ.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    9. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 29 Sep 2020
      Replying to @saarwilf @Rootclaim

      There are literally dozens of websites that look exactly the same for HCQ. I'm not saying that the two treatments are the same - I'm saying a lack of evidence doesn't allow for good decision-making no matter how many inconclusive studies you link to

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    10. Saar Wilf‏ @saarwilf 29 Sep 2020
      Replying to @GidMK @Rootclaim

      Yes, the look of the website is not the differentiator. You need to evaluate the actual studies. I understand if you don’t have the time for it, but please don’t dismiss what you haven’t studied. Especially when thousands of lives are at stake.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 29 Sep 2020
      Replying to @saarwilf @Rootclaim

      I don't think you understand my point. A Github repository is fine, but having lots of inconclusive research doesn't add up to a definitive answer, it leaves you with the same question just using more words

      5:01 AM - 29 Sep 2020
      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Saar Wilf‏ @saarwilf 29 Sep 2020
          Replying to @GidMK @Rootclaim

          That is highly inaccurate. Multiple weak indications can definitely result in a strong conclusion if they each assess different aspects of the question, are not filtered, and come from independent sources.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 29 Sep 2020
          Replying to @saarwilf @Rootclaim

          If you run dozens of studies that are all flawed, most of them in the same ways, then you haven't gotten any closer to an answer to your original question. It's a pretty foundational fact of research

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. Show replies

      Loading seems to be taking a while.

      Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2021 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info