Opens profile photo
Follow
Dr. Deepti Gurdasani
@dgurdasani1
Clinical epidemiology, machine learning, global health. Intersectional feminist. she/her. Now also on @dgurdasani1@mastodon.world
Joined October 2017

Dr. Deepti Gurdasani’s Tweets

Pinned Tweet
#JohnSnowMemo Scientists, health professionals, public health researchers- please join the call for action. Sign the John Snow Memorandum here: johnsnowmemo.com Please disseminate widely.
Quote Tweet
NEW Correspondence—80+ researchers warn that a so-called #herdimmunity approach to managing #COVID19 is “a dangerous fallacy unsupported by the scientific evidence” #WCPH2020 hubs.li/H0xZVrs0
Show this thread
Image
470
4,025
FYI, the latest Conly and co. anti-mask Cochrane review, is still pooling targeted arms with continuous arms, to intentionally dilute the effectiveness of N95s. The same error I highlighted in Oct 2021 persists today, because this is all about decision-based evidence-making.
Image
Quote Tweet
Image
Image
So did they include MacIntyre 2013? Yes they did! Here's what they pooled in their meta-analysis: 1) MacIntyre 2011 - Continuous N95 2) MacIntyre 2013 - Continuous N95 3) MacIntyre 2013 - Targeted/intermittent N95 4) Radonovich 2019 - "Close contact" N95 6/17
Show this thread
5
165
Show this thread
Epidemiology 101 - if event 1 (vax) happens with a frequency of 8%, and COVID at 1% - then comparing even a completely unrelated event recorded within 4 wks of each will show the event is more common after vax... how on earth do people who don't get this become voices on COVID.
Quote Tweet
What Dr. Hoeg is dutifully missing here is that this study was not designed to compare vaccine induced myocarditis rates to COVID induced rates. It was designed to compare severity. She is completely misrepresenting the study results. Let me explain. twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/…
Show this thread
1
110
Show this thread
So tired of the usual grifters putting out misinformation on this site- misinformation that is going to cost lives of children. Everyone who has platformed them is fully complicit- the media, scientists, and institutions that continue to do nothing in the face of harm.
12
573
Here's an excellent breakdown of why this is very likely a wilful misinterpretation of the study:
Quote Tweet
What Dr. Hoeg is dutifully missing here is that this study was not designed to compare vaccine induced myocarditis rates to COVID induced rates. It was designed to compare severity. She is completely misrepresenting the study results. Let me explain. twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/…
Show this thread
2
67
Show this thread
What Dr. Hoeg is dutifully missing here is that this study was not designed to compare vaccine induced myocarditis rates to COVID induced rates. It was designed to compare severity. She is completely misrepresenting the study results. Let me explain.
Quote Tweet
New Nordic study🇩🇰🇸🇪🇫🇮🇳🇴 Follow up through late winter/early spring 2022 4.8x more cases of post vax myo than post covid myo >10x more in 12-24 year olds 2x as many post vax heart failure dx than post covid But the authors' conclusions may surprise you 🧵 bmjmedicine.bmj.com/content/2/1/e0
Show this thread
Image
11
229
Show this thread
If you really want a head to head comparison, you need to compare myocarditis among those with COVID vs those with vax, which isn't what the study does. Hence, the conclusions made here simply can't be made- so one has to ask why they're being made in the 1st place?
1
47
Show this thread
If vax use is high and mitigations are in place absolute number of COVID myocarditis will be lower than vax myocarditis- this is the aim, because COVID myocarditis is far more severe, and should be prevented while vax myocarditis is rare and far less severe.
1
46
Show this thread
The paper isn't meant to look at relative severity of COVID vs vax myocarditis at all. In fact, if vax works really well, one would very likely see more vax myocarditis (far less likely to be severe) than COVID myocarditis- this is a good thing that tells us that vaccines work!
1
46
Show this thread
What this paper actually shows: "Among patients aged 12-39 years with no predisposing comorbidities, the relative risk of heart failure or death was 5.78 higher for myocarditis associated with covid-19 disease than for myocarditis associated with vaccination"
Quote Tweet
New Nordic study🇩🇰🇸🇪🇫🇮🇳🇴 Follow up through late winter/early spring 2022 4.8x more cases of post vax myo than post covid myo >10x more in 12-24 year olds 2x as many post vax heart failure dx than post covid But the authors' conclusions may surprise you 🧵 bmjmedicine.bmj.com/content/2/1/e0
Show this thread
Image
4
240
Show this thread
Children — countries like UK/Australia are now anti-vaccines & boosters yet #covid #longcovid school disruption is worse than other diseases we vaccinate against. We also don’t know the long term sequels on children (& community) of allowing such high, repeat infections… 1/
Quote Tweet
Disappointing to hear ATAGI speak about 'rarity of severe disease in children' & suggest that children don't need boosters because they have strong protection - quoting JCVI. Evidence suggests COVID is a leading cause of infectious/resp death & long COVID & immunity wanes🧵
Show this thread
Image
3
57
Show this thread
⬇️ pediatric cardiologist who has treated sick kids and published on vaccine myocarditis. Small Twitter audience and no YouTube videos. Reliable.
Quote Tweet
#COVID19 #CovidVaccines #Myocarditis The latest antivax tactic is claiming that COVID myocarditis isn't really a thing. While this isn't quite as bad as @naomirwolf wanting to escape to Ireland to get away from the 5G, they are still trying to pull a hall of mirrors trick. 🧵
Show this thread
71
The good news is much of this exposure can be mitigated with cleaner air & good masks. And it's worth mitigating given the substantially increased risk of long-term neurodegenerative disease - not just with COVID. These measures reduce all airborne infection.
1
152
Show this thread
New study in Neuron finds association between viral infections of the brain with later Alzheimer's. Given SARSCoV2 has probably created the largest 3-year epidemic of viral brain infections in history, expect a increase in AD rates 3-15 years from now
31
1,664
Show this thread
Also, the recent study from Israel showing a significantly higher risk of Streptococcal tonsillitis in children up to 1 yr post-COVID. We need to stop putting children in the way of harm - even the evidence we have so far is far from reassuring.
6
162
Show this thread
Viral infections are far from benign. They've been thought of this way only because long-term consequences hadn't been studied. Don't listen to those who paint these as 'mild'. Remember how long the EBV-MS association took to uncover. We're just learning about long-term impacts.
Quote Tweet
New study in Neuron finds association between viral infections of the brain with later Alzheimer's. Given SARSCoV2 has probably created the largest 3-year epidemic of viral brain infections in history, expect a increase in AD rates 3-15 years from now cell.com/neuron/fulltex
Show this thread
10
534
Show this thread
Please stop repeating these myths. Whatever Ladhani says, his own studies have shown rapid loss of immunity against infection in children post-infection and that children commonly have long-term impacts on health.
3
150
Show this thread
It's very clear that JCVI/Ladhani have had a huge impact not just on policy in the UK, but across Europe and Australia and many other countries. Seeing Ladhani platformed on the Immunisation coalition to & hearing that ATAGI discussed policy with JCVI is beyond disappointing.
1
132
Show this thread
So please stop with the myth that children are somehow unaffected. Any illness affecting children so commonly for 6 months to a yr is significant. I cannot understand how this has been ignored for so long, and still continues to be. All while children continue to be impacted.
1
219
Show this thread
I find it odd how 'severe' outcomes in children are considered rare, and protections not considered. A difference in tiredness of 10% between COVID positive and negative cases at 6 months persisting at 12 months! How is this not significant? How is this rare? It isn't.
Image
1
109
Show this thread
We know vaccines reduce incidence of persistent symptoms. We don't know how this protection holds up over time. But we know protection against infection certainly wanes quickly (and protection against severe disease more slowly)
1
70
Show this thread
The recent CLock study showed huge differences in persistent symptoms in COVID cases and non-COVID cases at 6 months. Just look at loss of smell alone- ~30% at 3 months & 15% at 8 months. And that's just one symptom!
Image
1
88
Show this thread
No, masks have been dropped in classrooms in Australia. Isolation is not mandatory, and duration of isolation has been reduced. There's no regular testing. Most schools don't have air-cleaning. So where are the protections against infection?
3
125
Show this thread
I guess one might say immunity against severe disease wanes more slowly- which may well be true. But what about protection against long COVID and infection. Sure, if there were other mitigations in place, potentially boosters may be less useful. But are there?
1
96
Show this thread
Disappointing to hear ATAGI speak about 'rarity of severe disease in children' & suggest that children don't need boosters because they have strong protection - quoting JCVI. Evidence suggests COVID is a leading cause of infectious/resp death & long COVID & immunity wanes🧵
Image
17
470
Show this thread
Some key quotes from this brilliant piece: "Hegemony refers 2 the dominance maintained by those in power to ensure that their preferred worldview is seen as natural, inevitable and beneficial to all, largely by manufacturing the consent of the people." 1/6
32
1,149
Show this thread
An appeal to editors and peer-reviewers- I know this is hard, but it's vitally important to actually look at the source studies, and material - worth choosing peer-reviewers who know the area really well and can identify these errors. One cannot assume that all is above board.
1
138
Show this thread
Systematic reviews are only valid if they are systematic (unbiased appraisal of study inclusion and quality), and if the information pulled out is accurate, and is then combined considering the quality & differences in design. Unfortunately, that's not what's happened at all.
1
104
Show this thread