Ioannidis sinks to a new low

[bob sterman]

Look at Appendix 1 in this new paper from Ioannidis (Pages 38-40)...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epd ... /eci.13554

How did this get published in a journal?

Just a personal attack on a junior scientist????

[bob sterman]

Sorry - I should have been clearer...

How did this get published in a journal (that Ioannidis used to be the Editor of)?

[Woodchopper]

David Gorski on What the heck happened to John Ioannidis?
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-t ... ioannidis/

Concludes

Maybe the problem with Prof. Ioannidis was there all along, and I just didn’t see it until the pandemic amplified it for all to see. He seems, dating back at least to 2012, have had the belief that conventional science is too “safe” and “conformist,” perhaps with a bit of a self-image of himself as being the “brave maverick doctor” or iconoclast. Maybe that’s why, during the pandemic, he was so easily drawn to being a “rebel” or a “contrarian,” whose findings bucked the existing consensus, and maybe that’s why he can’t give that up. After all, it’s happened to greater scientists than he. Moreover, Prof. Ioannidis seems to be an excellent cautionary tale at how being a critic doesn’t necessarily mean that you can do what’s being criticized that well. He’s very good at finding the flaws in studies, but his studies during the pandemic demonstrate that, when designing studies of his own, he’s prone to every bias and flaw that he criticizes in others.

[Woodchopper]

His paper also concludes:

Overall average IFR may be ~0.3-0.4% in Europe and the Americas (~0.2% among community-dwelling non-institutionalized people)

So far there have been 148 125 UK deaths with Covid on the death certificate and the population is 66.8 million. About 0.22% of the Uk population has already died. Ioannidis' estimate would only make sense if almost everyone had been infected already. Which they haven't.

[Squeak]

Look at Appendix 1 in this new paper from Ioannidis (Pages 38-40)...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epd ... /eci.13554

How did this get published in a journal?

Just a personal attack on a junior scientist????

Holy f.ck. That is unbelievably appalling. How dare a twitter-using PhD student write a meta-analysis?!

Having not read the rest of the paper yet, does he anywhere explain what is actually wrong with this meta-analysis or is it simply that it was written by two students and came to conclusions that Ioannidis didn't like?

Not only should that have never got near print, just submitting that to a journal should be a sackable offence. It's got nothing to do with science and is merely very public bullying.

[jimbob]

His paper also concludes:

Overall average IFR may be ~0.3-0.4% in Europe and the Americas (~0.2% among community-dwelling non-institutionalized people)

So far there have been 148 125 UK deaths with Covid on the death certificate and the population is 66.8 million. About 0.22% of the Uk population has already died. Ioannidis' estimate would only make sense if almost everyone had been infected already. Which they haven't.

Michael Levitt tweeted this paper (uncritically) and as he follows me, I was looking for the list of regions where the PFR is significantly higher than the claimed average IFR... I thought there was a link from this subforum, but can't find it.


But, yes, it makes absolutely no sense at all.

[jimbob]

His paper also concludes:

Overall average IFR may be ~0.3-0.4% in Europe and the Americas (~0.2% among community-dwelling non-institutionalized people)

So far there have been 148 125 UK deaths with Covid on the death certificate and the population is 66.8 million. About 0.22% of the Uk population has already died. Ioannidis' estimate would only make sense if almost everyone had been infected already. Which they haven't.

And that's almost certainly about 12,000 too low - due to the undercounting for the first five weeks of the first wave at over 2000 per week.

[Fishnut]

There's a good thread here from one of the targets of his abuse. The first part of the thread focuses on the criticisms of the meta-review but the second part is, I think, the more important one as it highlights the total disdain Ioannidis has for less senior academics, and the broader impact this has.

[sTeamTraen]

I talked to Ioannidis briefly at a conference once. I discovered that he wears white suits.

[bob sterman]

I talked to Ioannidis briefly at a conference once. I discovered that he wears white suits.

Supposedly...

"A man in white is often searching for something: dirt, or life, or love, money or blood, fame or notoriety. A white suit attracts what you don’t have or what you want more of."

The enduring mystique of the white suit
https://slate.com/culture/2005/05/the-e ... -suit.html

[Little waster]

I talked to Ioannidis briefly at a conference once. I discovered that he wears white suits.

Supposedly...

"A man in white is often searching for something: dirt, or life, or love, money or blood, fame or notoriety. A white suit attracts what you don’t have or what you want more of."

The enduring mystique of the white suit
https://slate.com/culture/2005/05/the-e ... -suit.html

Or possibly tinned fruit

[sTeamTraen]

The offending sections appear to have been excised "during typesetting". <Dr_Evil_Air_Quotes.gif>

[bob sterman]

The offending sections appear to have been excised "during typesetting". <Dr_Evil_Air_Quotes.gif>

Ioannidis has added a note to the new appendix - about his "earnest efforts" and his "vilification"...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/ ... dices.docx

Note added by the author in proof: An earlier pre-proof version of the paper contained an additional supplementary appendix that I have asked the journal to remove. The appendix was an earnest effort to explore in more depth whether technical competence issues or confirmation biases could explain why two overviews had strong, unidirectional biases that differentiated them from the other 4 overviews. I am grateful to commentators who suggested that this effort might be misinterpreted here. Dispassionate discussion of these technical and bias issues may be pursued in other fora. The notion that other people’s feelings may be hurt causes me more regret than the vilification that I have suffered, because my priority as a physician and epidemiologist has always been to care for other people, even more so in a time of major crisis. Commotion shifts the discussion away from the scientific essence of the main paper, effectively silencing scientific debate. I particularly applaud students who have offered me their wisdom and critique in this occasion, as I consider myself the least knowledgeable student of all.

[sTeamTraen]

The offending sections appear to have been excised "during typesetting". <Dr_Evil_Air_Quotes.gif>

Ioannidis has added a note to the new appendix - about his "earnest efforts" and his "vilification"...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/ ... dices.docx

Note added by the author in proof: An earlier pre-proof version of the paper contained an additional supplementary appendix that I have asked the journal to remove. The appendix was an earnest effort to explore in more depth whether technical competence issues or confirmation biases could explain why two overviews had strong, unidirectional biases that differentiated them from the other 4 overviews. I am grateful to commentators who suggested that this effort might be misinterpreted here. Dispassionate discussion of these technical and bias issues may be pursued in other fora. The notion that other people’s feelings may be hurt causes me more regret than the vilification that I have suffered, because my priority as a physician and epidemiologist has always been to care for other people, even more so in a time of major crisis. Commotion shifts the discussion away from the scientific essence of the main paper, effectively silencing scientific debate. I particularly applaud students who have offered me their wisdom and critique in this occasion, as I consider myself the least knowledgeable student of all.

He's a regular Uriah Heep, isn't he?

[Squeak]

How very noble and gracious of him.