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 14 Dec 2020
      Replying to @__ice9

      Sure, but the problem is that dozens of terrible studies are as useless for the purposes of evidence collection as a single terrible study

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    2. ice9‏ @__ice9 14 Dec 2020
      Replying to @GidMK

      First off, I would start by just throwing out any observational study that isn't heavily controlled for potential confounds. Maybe keep ICON. That one was decent. Second, throw out anything with suspicious round numbers and suspiciously large claimed N.

      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
    3. ice9‏ @__ice9 14 Dec 2020
      Replying to @__ice9 @GidMK

      I actually disagree with that claim, though. A single study can be fraudulent much, much more easily than a dozen of them can be. Yes, there are some soft endpoints, not a lot of placebos, many open-label studies, occasional vague reporting. Maybe focus on just mortality.

      2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
    4. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 15 Dec 2020
      Replying to @__ice9

      Fraud is rare and not my main issue. Bad studies that cannot answer the question are ubiquitous, and do not actually give you any useful information on the issue at hand

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    5. ice9‏ @__ice9 15 Dec 2020
      Replying to @GidMK

      ice9 Retweeted ice9

      I think that is a very absolutist view. EBM is important. EBM purity spirals are harmful.https://twitter.com/__ice9/status/1328856819742232576?s=19 …

      ice9 added,

      ice9 @__ice9
      Replying to @__ice9 @alt_kia
      Somehow the ideas that empirical evidence should guide health decisions, and that higher quality evidence is better, were short-circuited into doing nothing at all while awaiting perfect evidence that will never come.
      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    6. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 15 Dec 2020
      Replying to @__ice9

      There is a complex equation that includes a very careful evaluation of the evidence at hand to guide decision-making. But when the best evidence is truly woeful, the only real conclusion you can make is that you don't know enough to make a decision

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    7. ice9‏ @__ice9 15 Dec 2020
      Replying to @GidMK

      I do not believe the matter has advanced to such precise quantifiability as that implied here. Regardless, acting on uncertain information and making due consideration for cost-benefit trade-offs are universal practical requirements in any empirical discipline.

      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
    8. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 15 Dec 2020
      Replying to @__ice9

      The issue is that we want to know the answer to the question "does ivermectin help for COVID-19?". Currently, the evidence does not allow us to answer that question

      3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    9. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 15 Dec 2020
      Replying to @GidMK @__ice9

      Every medical treatment has side-effects. The enthusiastic over-promotion of HCQ was based on almost identically terrible evidence, and we know how that turned out

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    10. ice9‏ @__ice9 15 Dec 2020
      Replying to @GidMK

      I dispute that they are similar. HCQ repeatedly failed RCTs as monotherapy, all over the world, at any given stage of the disease. Ivermectin has produced entirely the opposite results.

      1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
      Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 15 Dec 2020
      Replying to @__ice9

      Not at all. HCQ had a slew of awful observational evidence and a number of worthless positive RCTs at the start of the pandemic. This is actually precisely what you'd expect given publication bias and imprecise, poorly done research

      3:29 AM - 15 Dec 2020
      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. ice9‏ @__ice9 15 Dec 2020
          Replying to @GidMK

          I was not referring at all to observational studies. I clearly stated RCTs. Moreover, I wrote "as monotherapy." If you looked closely, you may have noticed that the only successful [H]CQ RCTs have been as an add-on to combination antiviral therapy.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 15 Dec 2020
          Replying to @__ice9

          That is not correct. There were a number of small but terrible studies of HCQ as a monotherapy way back in April/May that were nevertheless "positive" in the same way as the ivermectin studies are

          2 replies 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