1/Just had an interview scheduled with @goddeketal, Dr Simon Goddek, the post-doctoral researcher at the Faculty of Mathematics and Statistics in the field of biotechnology, at an unnamed Dutch university. This researcher has been publicly pointing out that the paper that...
More from Science
💥💥 Situation Update, Dec. 7th – DNI John Ratcliffe, the bogus science of PCR testing and China’s GMO super soldiers
✅ I cover the bogus science behind PCR testing, explaining from a lab science point of view why no PCR instrument can “quantify” anything,
[M. Adams]
1. whether it’s a coronavirus viral load or the percentage of a food that’s GMO. In fact, literally all the tests currently conducted with PCR equipment are scientifically invalid when it comes to diagnosing illness or determining infectiousness. The sample acquisition used for
2. PCR tests — nasal swabs — aren’t even standardized! (100% bogus junk science).
After covering PCR tests, today’s update then goes into detail about Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe, pointing out that he will be issuing a report on foreign interference
3. in U.S. elections on or before Dec. 18th. If this report confirms the existence of foreign interference that was capable of altering the outcome of the election, it gives President Trump full justification to declare the election null and void and dispatch military troops
4. to seize all ballots and hold a new count under military authority.
👉 Podcast notes and sources:
The office of military commissions has cleared its calendar for December:
https://t.co/u4nFRiUj8m
US military STOCKPILED Pfizer’s mRNA vaccineBEFORE it was approved by theFDA
✅ I cover the bogus science behind PCR testing, explaining from a lab science point of view why no PCR instrument can “quantify” anything,
[M. Adams]
1. whether it’s a coronavirus viral load or the percentage of a food that’s GMO. In fact, literally all the tests currently conducted with PCR equipment are scientifically invalid when it comes to diagnosing illness or determining infectiousness. The sample acquisition used for
2. PCR tests — nasal swabs — aren’t even standardized! (100% bogus junk science).
After covering PCR tests, today’s update then goes into detail about Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe, pointing out that he will be issuing a report on foreign interference
3. in U.S. elections on or before Dec. 18th. If this report confirms the existence of foreign interference that was capable of altering the outcome of the election, it gives President Trump full justification to declare the election null and void and dispatch military troops
4. to seize all ballots and hold a new count under military authority.
👉 Podcast notes and sources:
The office of military commissions has cleared its calendar for December:
https://t.co/u4nFRiUj8m
US military STOCKPILED Pfizer’s mRNA vaccineBEFORE it was approved by theFDA
@mugecevik is an excellent scientist and a responsible professional. She likely read the paper more carefully than most. She grasped some of its strengths and weaknesses that are not apparent from a cursory glance. Below, I will mention a few points some may have missed.
1/
The paper does NOT evaluate the effect of school closures. Instead it conflates all ‘educational settings' into a single category, which includes universities.
2/
The paper primarily evaluates data from March and April 2020. The article is not particularly clear about this limitation, but the information can be found in the hefty supplementary material.
3/
The authors applied four different regression methods (some fancier than others) to the same data. The outcomes of the different regression models are correlated (enough to reach statistical significance), but they vary a lot. (heat map on the right below).
4/
The effect of individual interventions is extremely difficult to disentangle as the authors stress themselves. There is a very large number of interventions considered and the model was run on 49 countries and 26 US States (and not >200 countries).
5/
1/
I've recently come across a disinformation around evidence relating to school closures and community transmission that's been platformed prominently. This arises from flawed understanding of the data that underlies this evidence, and the methodologies used in these studies. pic.twitter.com/VM7cVKghgj
— Deepti Gurdasani (@dgurdasani1) February 1, 2021
The paper does NOT evaluate the effect of school closures. Instead it conflates all ‘educational settings' into a single category, which includes universities.
2/
The paper primarily evaluates data from March and April 2020. The article is not particularly clear about this limitation, but the information can be found in the hefty supplementary material.
3/
The authors applied four different regression methods (some fancier than others) to the same data. The outcomes of the different regression models are correlated (enough to reach statistical significance), but they vary a lot. (heat map on the right below).
4/
The effect of individual interventions is extremely difficult to disentangle as the authors stress themselves. There is a very large number of interventions considered and the model was run on 49 countries and 26 US States (and not >200 countries).
5/
What are the classics of the "Science of Science" or "Meta Science"? If you were teaching a class on the subject, what would go in the syllabus?
Here's a (very disorganized and incomplete) handful of suggestions, which I may add to. Suggestions welcome, especially if you've dug into relevant literatures.
1. The already classic "Estimating the reproducibility of
psychological science" from the Open Science Collaboration of @BrianNosek et al. https://t.co/yjGczLZ6Je
(Look at that abstract, wow!)
Many people had pointed out problems with standard statistical methods, going back decades (what are the best refs?). But this paper was a sledgehammer, making it impossible to ignore the question: what, if anything, were we actually learning from all those statistical studies?
2. Dean Keith Simonton's book "Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist". If an essentially scientometric book could be described as a fun romp through science & creativity, this would be it
Here's a (very disorganized and incomplete) handful of suggestions, which I may add to. Suggestions welcome, especially if you've dug into relevant literatures.
1. The already classic "Estimating the reproducibility of
psychological science" from the Open Science Collaboration of @BrianNosek et al. https://t.co/yjGczLZ6Je
(Look at that abstract, wow!)
Many people had pointed out problems with standard statistical methods, going back decades (what are the best refs?). But this paper was a sledgehammer, making it impossible to ignore the question: what, if anything, were we actually learning from all those statistical studies?
2. Dean Keith Simonton's book "Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist". If an essentially scientometric book could be described as a fun romp through science & creativity, this would be it
