Tom Cruise's Dad

My feed is for me, not you.

[Tom Cruise's Dad @Tom_Cruises_Dad]

@beauhightowerdn How much you save per month or like an apy on a savings account?

[Tom Cruise's Dad @Tom_Cruises_Dad]

@DetroitOnLion Getting old sure sucks.

[Tom Cruise's Dad @Tom_Cruises_Dad]

@SociallyGreg @MarcGoldwein Your post basically shows they've projected around 2030 for the last 40 years.

[Tom Cruise's Dad @Tom_Cruises_Dad]

@Hockey8player @davebirkett Meh. Like having something different personally rather than the same old thing but slightly different. Glad they taking chances on something different.

[Tom Cruise's Dad @Tom_Cruises_Dad]

@DetroitOnLion I'm convinced that any jersey they come out with people will complain. Personally I like the experimentation and I actually think they'll look pretty cool when they play because the blue helmets make them pop a bit.

[Tom Cruise's Dad @Tom_Cruises_Dad]

@PrideOfDetroit A big welcome to RB7.

[Mike Solana @micsolana]

@esaagar so you admit we've had thousands of data centers all over the country for years, which have done no harm, and which nobody has really noticed, which have been essential to building our entire modern economy, which you yourself specifically owe your entire livelihood?

[Tom Cruise's Dad @Tom_Cruises_Dad]

@RespectableCon Pretty clearly a church thing. Utah is green because of tithing from Mormonism.

[Tom Cruise's Dad @Tom_Cruises_Dad]

@3630no6 @grok @jmhorp Wth you talking about? It said most pay 25-36k and that 50k is on the upper end. Can easily find good day care for ~1k/month everywhere else in the country that isn't essentially the most expensive place in the entire country.

[Tom Cruise's Dad @Tom_Cruises_Dad]

@beauhightowerdn Me-bounds baby.

[Tom Cruise's Dad @Tom_Cruises_Dad]

@herdirtytoes @ClassicJukeboxx @BenBikmanPhD This is true that it can help link evidence to make a point but they're only going to link evidence that helps tell the story that they want to tell. They can cherry-pick the data and leave out whatever they want to do they can sell you on their theory.

[Tom Cruise's Dad @Tom_Cruises_Dad]

@herdirtytoes @ClassicJukeboxx @BenBikmanPhD Sure it's expected that people write books. There are plenty of totally misleading books, even from scientists. Anyone can write a book and make claims that don't necessarily correlate to the overall evidence. That's why just stating "this book shows x" doesn't mean anything.

[Tom Cruise's Dad @Tom_Cruises_Dad]

@herdirtytoes @ClassicJukeboxx @BenBikmanPhD That's all fine, but the point was that a book from a guy, even a scientist, isn't evidence. Studies are evidence. His studies are evidence, but the key is how his studies contribute to the overall picture, not undisputable proof all on their own.

[Tom Cruise's Dad @Tom_Cruises_Dad]

@beauhightowerdn I mean this isnt going to convince any conspiracy nuts. It's a conspiracy regardless of whatever happens. They'll say it was all a part of the plan to have him take the fall or some sh*t.

[Howard Luks MD @hjluks]

We’ve become so good at making life easier that we sometimes forget what happens when the body never has to work.

If we consistently ask our bodies to do very little, they eventually become prepared to do very little.

This issue explains so much of the aches and pains we see in the office... most folks don't need scans... they need to move more.

[Sara Eisen @SaraEisen]

In Loudoun Virginia home to more than 200 data centers, tax revenue from data centers has exploded. As a result, over the past 10years, they lowered the real property tax rate every year from $1.145 in tax year 2016 to $0.805 cents per $100 in assessed value for 2026.

[​𝐥𝐲𝐫𝐚 @sunnkssdseraph]

You'll regret it if you get married, you'll regret it if you don't get married. You'll regret it if you have kids and you'll regret it if you don't. Kierkegaard said this 200 years ago as follows - whatever you choose, you'll regret it, because the problem isn't in your choices, it's in romanticizing your life. A person always finds an untravelled path alluring and mysterious. That's why the issue isn't making the right choice. It's choosing and deciding which regret you'll live with. In life, we must choose our regret.

[Adam Cochran (adamscochran.eth) @adamscochran]

In the US the total routine injections by age 2, is 13.

They are:

Hep B, Valexis (DTaP, IPV, Hib), PCV, Valexis dose 2, PCV dose 2, Vaxelis dose 3, PCV dose 3, PCV booster, MMR(V), Hib booster, Hepatitis A #1, DTaP booster, Hepatitis A #2

In Denmark, by age 2 it is 11 doses because they combine their hepatitis boosters with the MMRV doses.

Even with voluntary inoculations, no child in the US has 72 injections.

The average American who is not diabetic, will take 53~ years to reach 72 injections, assuming they get an annual flu shot.

There also is no blanket “European Standard” of inoculation, it varies by country with Denmark being the lowest because they have approved combination doses.

A child in Denmark still gets all the same vaccines that a US child did before Trump’s proposed changes.

They just think you’re too stupid to look.

[Crémieux @cremieuxrecueil]

The main question this raises for me is whether David is daft or whether he's lying. It's at least one or the other.

Let's go through what David's said and why he's completely wrong and how, as a result, he's spreading misinformation.

In the Rogan clip, David said "Sudden blindness. It's called NAION, which is now twice as more prevalent because of the GLP-1 drugs.... Sudden blindness has doubled seemingly because these meds [referring to GLP-1RAs]."

To support this claim, David must provide data showing that the population rate of "sudden blindness" (and perhaps just NAION) has doubled.

Does he? No. What he links, instead, is a study that compares small groups of people at one particular ophthalmology clinic who were taking GLP-1RAs to those taking either other diabetes medications or other obesity medications. He also linked a press release on a conference presentation to a similarly-weak analysis.

Can you grasp the difference between what he should've linked and what he did link?

He linked non-causal comparisons of groups that are very different from the general population, but he should've linked EHR or alternative monitoring-based prevalence estimates, like what I pulled.

Now, if we take David's linked studies seriously, then the actual rate of NAION in society should be well beyond the actually diagnosed rate. The actual rate is 2-10 per 100,000. In one of the studies he linked, it's almost 2% of the diabetics on non-GLP-1RA medication and almost 9% on GLP-1RAs. Given the number of Americans who have used GLP-1RAs by now, you should know many people who went blind. But you do not, because these studies don't apply to the general population.

I pointed this out before in a post linked in the thread that David is replying to, meaning that in addition to being daft, a liar, or both, he's also not circumspected, because his specific links were already shown to lead to absurd conclusions. In fact, the result was also shown to not hold up when the analysis is done in large, population-representative samples with better controls: https://t.co/xb4h50sMSE

My conclusions subsequently replicated again: https://t.co/dwNY3I4CVB

And again: https://t.co/ft6BWN7qxp

David's only holds up in weak studies with small samples, poor controls, and results that imply that HUGE portions of the population should've already gone blind -- and they have not, so they are obviously wrong.

This is part of what I was getting at in the thread: we can sanity check these studies. If they imply that there should be an epidemic of blindness, we can look to see in descriptive data if there is such an epidemic. Since there is not, we know the studies are flawed in one or more ways that prevent generalizing from them.

Get it? David didn't.

Instead, he decided to go on one of the most popular podcasts and fail to even describe his referenced studies correctly.

David's "sudden blindness" remark was actually fortuitous for me, because using all forms of acute blindness, we have enough power to detect a trend lately, if there's been one. There hasn't, as I noted. Looking at NAION specifically, we're left with a different conclusion: there's not enough power to detect a doubling (there is more than enough to detect what David's cited studies imply though!). The numbers have not drifted at all with age controlled (they're nonsignificantly down), which means that there's not even a reason to suspect the incidence is up.

That also means there's not a reason for David to have said what he did. He just yapped without underlying data to support what he said, and data actually contradicting it.

David's comment started ironically, by accusing me of having a financial conflict of interest. Ironically, he has a financial conflict of interest, in that he is developing a therapy that he believes will help with this issue that isn't actually an issue. So, he's financially incentivized to play it up, even though doing so is lying and is harmful because it gets patients to avoid good drugs on the basis of alleged side effects that would, at most, be extremely rare, and are more likely not present at all.

So, is David dumb? Is he lying? Or is he a bad actor? Of course, he can be all of the above.