350 million doses so far. 340 million people in the US. So we would expect 4,200 heart attacks every single day after vaccination if the vaccination causes zero. If we saw MORE than 4,200, there would be a major problem. These numbers seem pretty normal and entirely expected.
-
-
-
Replying to @EdoajoEric @mjtimber2 and
No, you are not. And here is why: 1) The observed rate of myocarditis/pericarditis events in <50yo males perfectly matches the expected rate 7 days after 2nd dose. 2) Dose 2 is not riskier than Dose 1. 3) Time_from_vax-to-myocarditis is a flat distribution. You are OK!pic.twitter.com/gJzXnuBbWZ
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @masimaux @EdoajoEric and
Oh no, a comparison to expected cases! Does this help or hurt the heart attack case? But this is evidence against Eric and his powers, as all that tapping has led to zero deaths from myocarditis amount the pediatric set.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mjtimber2 @masimaux and
Matt I think you need to put your money where your mouth is and allow me to tap you on the shoulder.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @EdoajoEric @mjtimber2 and
Eric, I'm glad you've finally found your natural habitat. Hanging out and having good time with analysts "detecting fraud" only in positive trials on unprofitable drugs such as Health Nerd, Kyle Sheldrick, this guy... Really your integrity league.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @masimaux @EdoajoEric and
Good: believing suspect studies. Bad: investigating suspect studies.pic.twitter.com/WRXHXK75Mz
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mjtimber2 @EdoajoEric and
The point is, your tweet-mates are easy to spot because they ONLY look for fraud/misconduct in (+) trials on cheap, repurposed meds. How do we know that they are scumbags? Because they NEVER look for fraud in (-) trials on repurposed meds and (+) trials on big-pharma meds.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @masimaux @EdoajoEric and
Matt Timberlake Retweeted Health Nerd
My “tweet-mates”?
But you’re wrong. Except when they don’t find any evidence of suspect data, they don’t write much about it. That seems self explanatory, doesn’t it? But if there is suspect data there, PLEASE post it.
How about this? Guess he is waiting for the real money?https://twitter.com/gidmk/status/1438261363797737472 …Matt Timberlake added,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mjtimber2 @EdoajoEric and
Massimaux Retweeted Health Nerd
Yes, your fucking scumbag tweet-mates. That nerd said that he NEVER found fraud in remdesivir trials. Never. Really? How come he didn't spot this suspicious chain of events? https://twitter.com/masimaux/status/1435593009945587718 …https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1424995504375492616 …
Massimaux added,
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
That's pretty obvious - switching primary outcome isn't fraud. Several ivermectin studies have done the same. It's not even necessarily bad research practice, although usually it's a bad sign
-
-
Medina-Lopez did so. Unfortunately that study is still cited as evidence that ivermectin does not protect against clinical deterioration.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EdoajoEric @masimaux and
See, I don't have a huge issue with that trial. They changed stuff, but were open at every stage about the change, and they've got analyses of the other stuff as well. Hard to take issue with a team that is open about problems
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
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.