to address perpetrated LIES in specifics...

1. i am not a "druggie". "druggie" is a slain word for "drug addict". i am not a drug addict. i am very ill with legitimate diagnosis as a result from extensive testing appointments etc..under the care of both doctors and specialists.

A week ago I voluntarily admitted myself to the hospital to get help bc I am losing weight as a result of increased food intolerances, secondary to my very severe #MECFS. A psychiatrist here decided that im mentally ill, 1/

purely on the basis that the medical workup was unable to explain my food intolerance. My psych eval only found mild anxiety and depression. 2/

They have put me on a 72hr psych hold while they work to get the county courts to commit me to a psych ward. This is a nightmare. They have taken away most of my belongings, put me in a new uniform, and are keeping me under 24/7 video surveillance. 3/

In the middle of the night last night when I sat up to use the urinal loud alarms sounded, as though I was trying to escape. I can’t even walk and hadn’t even left my bed. 4/

If they succeed in having me fully committed I will lose ability to communicate with the outside world except for an occasional phone call. I will lose all agency, and will very likely have treatments forced upon me. 5/

@br0oklynzo0 @KatyMontgomerie @ElPolloDiabloX @AbigailShrier @chadfelixg Okay, so you haven't read the study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, you've read a Guardian story about it.

I have now read the study, and I teach critical appraisal as part of my job, so let's dive into it a bit.

@KatyMontgomerie @ElPolloDiabloX @AbigailShrier @chadfelixg First things first, the sample size in this study is tiny. 46 people. Plus, the point of comparison was "all women and men under the age of 30 in the Air Force between 2004 and 2014" rather than a longitudinal group.

@KatyMontgomerie @ElPolloDiabloX @AbigailShrier @chadfelixg So no matching for age, background, or physical condition. The result of these is that you're going to get a lot of statistical artefacts.

@KatyMontgomerie @ElPolloDiabloX @AbigailShrier @chadfelixg Second of all, there were three points of comparison here and you're ignoring two of them. The researchers measured for push-ups and sit-ups as well, both of which showed physical advantage removed entirely by hormones. Which means you're cherrypicking.

@KatyMontgomerie @ElPolloDiabloX @AbigailShrier @chadfelixg So what do you get when you have a tiny sample size and cherrypicked results? That's right, you get noise in the data. Take a look at the results graph from this paper you haven't read.

Our conscious experience exists. In fact, it's the only thing you can directly observe, as everything about reality and how we perceive it is filtered through how our brains process stimuli and information. You are the only one who can define who and what you are.

Don't get me wrong, I am a materialist who believes the universe exists in the absence of beings who can observe it from an intelligence standpoint, but we are all collections of atoms, our function governed by chemical processes, not perfectly replicated by the process of birth.

Our means of DNA replication is imprecise because of billions of years of random evolution. We are on one branch of many, and there is countless variation in how all living beings are formed, and how we classify traits of those creatures, including sex and reproduction methods.

It would be an error to say that people who are intersex and/or transgender are the results of mistakes or errors in reproduction, because it implies DNA is "trying" to create a binary model of people and sometimes gets it wrong. It doesn't "try" to do anything; DNA != conscious.

Rather, our biological blueprints are not precise, and this is true for all living things. We can crossbreed plants and animals because of that imprecise nature, it's responsible for what we perceive as the "races" of people, etc. We can observe variation everywhere.

It's Monday AM post-@ASCO #GU21 & clinic starts in a couple of hours! Lots to process - I'll try to tackle optimal 1L tx for #kidneycancer. I'll make a case for cabo/nivo, leaning on the beautiful (& timely) tables below from @lalaniMD, @SoaresAndrey & @brian_rini (1/15)

What about IO/IO? We have long f/u w #CM214 data w nivo/ipi, no doubt (@AlbigesL et al in @myESMO Open). And treatment-free interval discussed by McDermott @BIDMChealth is no doubt impt. But we've known data not as impressive for favorable risk (2/15)

And furthermore, as @ERPlimackMD points out in another tweet, impt to look at primary PD rates (seen in @lalaniMD's table) - nivo/ipi at 19%!!! CR rate used to be something we highlighted w nivo/ipi, but now comparable across studies (3/15)

Okay now to the really tough stuff - comparing TKI/IO regimens. Something interesting I will add to @brian_rini @uromigos table above is the HR for PFS by INVESTIGATOR review. If the diff in HR for PFS by IND review caught your eye, this is even more striking (4/15)

I think INV-assessed PFS is impt, but if you're a skeptic, forget that argument. Turn instead to #QOL with axi/pembro. Kudos to @brian_rini @tompowles1 @ERPlimackMD et al for advocating for QOL in KN-426. @crisbergerot et al have taughts us the importance of these metrics. (5/15)