Sabitlenmiş Tweet
the 3 devils you should exclude😈👹👺
to make space for animal foods🥩🥚🐟
English
Raphael Sirtoli
55.1K posts
Raphael Sirtoli
@raphaels7
Senior Medical Researcher at Ancestralize (a health app) & Chief Scientist at Clinica Pêro (a medical clinic) https://t.co/KwIrcT7PX7. Views are my own
Nice, France Katılım Mart 2009
945 Takip Edilen8.6K Takipçiler
Raphael Sirtoli retweetledi
Upon further research, I can confirm that Our World in Data (OWID) hasNOT changed the source for this chart overnight. What actually happens is that OWID presents two different approaches to measuring cancer death rates: one based on reported data from the WHO, and another based on estimates from IHME's Global Burden of Disease study.
The misleading part is that OWID uses the same title ("Death rate from cancer") for both charts, and the IHME IHME/GBD version can be harder to find or access online.
It is widely recognized in public health that not all cancer deaths are properly registered on death certificates in many countries, which leads to underreporting in official mortality statistics. As a result, reported cancer mortality rates tend to be lower in official records than they are in reality.
This explains why cancer mortality rates from WHO sources are generally lowerthan those estimated by IHME (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation) in the Global Burden of Disease study.
IHME/GBD doesn't just "collect" raw data; it intensively adjusts for under-registration, redistributes garbage codes, and models to estimate real cancer mortality, especially addressing under-registration and mis-coding.
Key estimation process for cancer deaths by IHME/GBD:
1. Massive collection of raw data from all available sources (tens of thousands of sources overall for GBD).
2. Correction and standardization: Adjustments for under-registration in vital systems; Redistribution of "garbage codes"(vague or incorrect codes on certificates, e.g., "multi-organ failure," "natural causes," "unspecified heart disease"). GBD uses evidence-based algorithms to reassign these to likely underlying causes, including cancer. This step is crucial for cancer, as many cases are not properly diagnosed or coded.
3. Ensemble modeling (combined models): Advanced statistical models (Cause of Death Ensemble model – CODEm) estimate cause-specific death rates for most causes; Mortality is estimated directly, but also informed by mortality-to-incidence ratios (MIR) for consistency with incidence data; Adjustments for age, sex, location, year, and age-standardization (using a global standard population) for fair comparisons; Incorporation of covariates (e.g., healthcare access, prevalence of risks like tobacco) to improve estimates in data-scarce countries.
4. Internal consistency: The entire time series (1990–2023) is re-estimated in each cycle to ensure comparability, even with new data inputs.
5. Uncertainty: Uncertainty intervals (UI) are calculated because data scarcity in some countries increases variability.
Here are the links to both OWID charts for cancer:
Death rate from cancer, 2000 to 2023 - SOURCE: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), Global Burden of Disease, 2025.
Estimated number of age-standardized deaths from total cancers, per 100,000 people.
ourworldindata.org/grapher/cancer…
Death rate from cancer, 2000 to 2023 - SOURCE: WHO (World Health Organization, 2025)
Reported annual death rate from total cancers, age-standardized per 100,000 people, based on the underlying cause listed on death certificates.
ourworldindata.org/grapher/cancer…
English
English
@nicknorwitz @raphaels7 @realDaveFeldman @AdrianSotoMota KetoCTA has done irreparable damage to the valid ketogenic diet movement. All just for clout.
English
I haven’t yet verified the validity of his criticisms, however, they are verifiable and don’t come with the usual ad hominem attacks - refreshing!
Looking forward to @realDaveFeldman @nicknorwitz @AdrianSotoMota rebuttal
Simon Hill MSc, BSc@theproof
Keto-CTA Study MANIPULATED Charts!? Statistical Violations!? youtu.be/AE8VGcyhfnM?si… via @YouTube Regardless of the Cleerly debate looks like this group has some answering to do with regards to their data analysis. And perhaps some learnings for next time they publish.
English
Intriguing analysis by Balázs, upshot being the large effect size of psychedelics for depression might be driven by the relative lack of placebo effect for placebo groups in psychedelic trials, because people know when they are in the placebo group. Yes there are limitations, but I think it points to something real we need to keep in mind. This helps to explain why I went with a randomized comparative efficacy design in our recent trial comparing psilocybin to nicotine patch in tobacco addiction.
Balázs Szigeti@psybalazs
🚨MAJOR NEW PAPER 🚨 just out in @JAMAPsych : Psychedelic Therapy vs Antidepressants for the Treatment of Depression Under Equal Unblinding Conditions (tinyurl.com/yu2rbtaf). I am very proud of this one, was a lot of work for me - both co-first and last author! Eternal gratitude to co-first @QuantPsychiatry and twitterless Hannah Barnett! The premise is that it is biased to compare open-label trials (=where patients know what treatment they are getting) to blind trials (=where patients do NOT know what they are getting). Open-label trials would gain an unfair advantage by higher placebo response. Even formally blinded psychedelic trials are practically open-label as its obvious to distinguish placebo from 25mg of #psilocybin. In contrast, traditional antidepressants (SSRIs/SNRIs) trials are are close to be truly blind (Lin 2022). Given the bias of open-label vs. blinded comparison, we compared the efficacy of psychedelic-therapy (which is practically always open-label) vs. open-label antidepressants for the treatment of major depression. We tested 3 prior hypothesis: - There will be a significant difference between psychedelic-therapy vs. open-label antidepressants, favoring psychedelic-therapy. - There will be a significant difference between blinded and open-label antidepressants trials, favoring open-label. - There will NOT be a significant difference between blinded and open-label psychedelic-therapy, as practically they are always open-label. In contrast with our prior hypothesis, we did not find psychedelic-therapy to be more effective than open-label antidepressants (H1). Not only was the difference not clinically meaningful, but practically there was no difference at all. This finding means that antidepressants administered knowingly to patients, which is the case in real-life medical practice, is as effective as psychedelic-therapy. This result was robust across variations in study selection, including when we removed psychedelic-therapy trials on treatment-resistant depression. We also assessed the impact of blinding in both psychedelic-therapy and antidepressants trials. We found that for antidepressants (H2), but not for psychedelic-therapy (H3), open label is associated with better outcomes than blinded treatment. However, even in the case of antidepressants, the difference was practically small (~1.3 HAMD units). How come hypothesis 1 failed, i.e. that psychedelic-therapy is no ore effective than open-label antidepressants, given that antidepressants trials are famous for small drug-placebo difference (~2.4 HAMD units), while psychedelic-therapy trials reported large effects (~7.3)? The key factor is that in psychedelic trials the placebo response is about 50% relative to antidepressants, ~ 4 vs 8 HAMD units (Hsu 2024, Hieronymus 2025). This suppressed placebo response leads to an inflated between-arm difference, as the treatment arm is measured against a lower floor. The suppressed placebo response in psychedelic-therapy trials is likely attributable to the ‘know-cebo’ effect, i.e. the disappointment when patients realize they are in the control group. In psychedelic-therapy trials, this placebo suppression accounts for 4.0 / 7.3 ~ 55% of the specific treatment effect. In other words, ~55% of psychedelic-therapy’s effect is not explained by patient improvement after the treatment, but rather by the lack of improvement in the placebo group. In summary, we found that for the treatment of depression, psychedelic-therapy is no more effective than open-label SSRIs/SNRIs. Our results for psychedelics are twofold: psychedelic-therapy demonstrated a robust and large therapeutic effects (~12 HAMD units), which justifies optimism. On the other hand, psychedelic-therapy’s lack of superiority compared to open-label SSRIs/SNRIs highlights the influence of blinding integrity and argues against overly optimistic narrative's about psychedelic-therapy's potential.
English
furthermore, the argument is that learning you're in the placebo arm rather than tripping on the psychedelic is "disappointing" enough to register as an increase on the HAM-D depression score, i.e. know-cebo - really?
not sure that's a strong enough argument to account for 55% of the psychedelic's >7 point HAM-D score improvement being due to "depressing the placebo" arm
Robin Carhart-Harris@RCarhartHarris
can we assume that ineffective blind activates a expectancy causation? I think we can for standard antidepressants (as evidence supports this) but not psychedelics (as evidence does not support this).
English
Raphael Sirtoli retweetledi
How strange – Our World in Data has changed the source for this chart today, and the conclusion is completely different.
My post above was a copy-and-paste from a screenshot taken on 16 March 2026 at 23:50 CET. But just a few hours later, on 17 March 2026 at 12:30 CET, this is the screenshot you can now see.
English
@nicknorwitz @realDaveFeldman @AdrianSotoMota Is the code on github? I’d like to try and reproduce it myself (with some help from my team, as my stats/R skills suck)
Didn’t mean to drag Simon into this, sorry. I just couldn’t be bothered to find the video in another tweet😅
English
Raphael Sirtoli retweetledi
Completely made up nonsense. Charts were direct R output. @AdrianSotoMota can provide code. Simon in particular is embarrassing himself. Critics are contorting themselves in pretzels to avoid the fact the original CLEERLY data are upended - not a high risk group - ApoB doesn’t predict progression. We’ve offered to discuss/debate. In fact Simon has a standing offer for expenses paid trip to Vegas to join @realDaveFeldman in his pod. At this point he’s just shallowing virtue signaling and digging in his heels. Sad.
Nick Norwitz MD PhD@nicknorwitz
You’ve completely lost the thread Simon. I can tell you I did not know, and that question has already been asked and answered by Dave. Second, you seem doggedly insistent on avoiding the key questions at hand related to the data. And since it appears two questions is too much for you, how about (1) Do you stand by the original Cleerly analysis? Yes or no? If you aren’t going to provide what a straightforward answer and instead dodge the fundamentals and the data, that provides me another form of answer.
English
Raphael Sirtoli retweetledi
Slavery in the Islamic world likely lasted longer—and involved as many or more people—than the Atlantic slave trade.
Yet it remains vastly under-researched and under-discussed in the West. Why?
Historian @JustinMarozzi: For years, studying it was “professionally hazardous for a young scholar.”
English
All of these diets contain "plants and animals"
- 1% plant & 99% animals
- 50% plants & 50% animals
- 30% plants & 70% animals
- 70% plants & 30% animals
These differences matter
The Paleo Diet®@ThePaleoDiet
Why do nutrition debates always put plants vs meat when humans historically ate both? Asking for a friend
English
@davidasinclair Did you receive any financial incentive for this post?
English
Started a statin age 30 and had to convince my doctor to prescribe it. How times have changed
Matthew Herper@matthewherper
New heart disease guidelines suggest statins as early as age 30 statnews.com/2026/03/13/hea…
English
Someone’s confusing his wishes with reality
Simon Hill MSc, BSc@theproof
Carnivore diet enthusiasm seems to be waning quickly
English
Raphael Sirtoli retweetledi
Did you ever notice that whenever Islamists attack, the U.N. and the media rush to “put it in context” but that when the U.S. finally strikes the Ayatollah's regime, they completely omit to mention that these mass murdering mullahs spent the past five decades attacking Americans?
English
Home lighting, blue-light filtering, and their effects on melatonin suppression
makes a good case for incandescent light bulbs
English
Raphael Sirtoli retweetledi
📣🚨The Free Speech Union is mounting a legal challenge against the Government over its official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as 'anti-Muslim hatred' — and its appointment of a new 'tsar' to punish people who fall foul of it.
This amounts to a Muslim blasphemy law via the back door. The definition is vague and subjective, and will be weaponised to silence legitimate criticism and debate about Islam, Muslims, and Islamic practices and history.
The FSU’s General Secretary, Lord Young of Acton, said: “This is the most serious threat to free speech the Government has come up with so far — the only area in which it’s achieving any success.
“If we don’t win this fight, tens of thousands of people a year could lose their jobs at the say-so of a Labour-appointed ‘tsar’. It’s dystopian.”
Public bodies will adopt this definition — despite it being non-statutory — with the same zeal the police have shown in investigating and recording non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). It is predicted by one of the drafters of the definition that it could lead to around 20,000 reports of 'anti-Muslim hostility' a year. At present, the number of recorded anti-Muslim hate crimes is around 4,000.
In a free society, no religion should be shielded from legitimate criticism. This proposal places one faith above the rest.
The Free Speech Union is bringing a legal challenge on two grounds.
First, the definition relies on nebulous, legally undefined terms such as “negative and prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims”, making it incoherent and irrational — and ripe for weaponisation.
Second, adopting such a definition cuts across legislation already enacted by Parliament and therefore breaches the public law principle known as “occupying the field”. Under this established public law doctrine, new regulations, put in place by ministers, must not replace existing legislation. It is constitutionally unlawful. In this case, the body responsible for protecting Muslims from discrimination is the Equality and Human Rights Commission, not an anti-Muslim hostility 'tsar'.
Parliament voted to abolish blasphemy laws 18 years ago. We can't let this Government resurrect them via the back door.
This is one of the biggest battles the Free Speech Union has ever taken on in its six years — and we need your help. Judicial reviews are expensive, but this is a fight we felt we had to take on.
Donate to our crowdfunder below👇
English
It has already begun.
Children’s drawings could be blasphemous under Islamic law, say Labour councils in the north of England.
Guidance issued to teachers by Labour councils warns that images made by pupils in art lessons could be seen as “idolatrous” under sharia law.
The advice also warns that music and dance classes could be contrary to the teachings of Islam.
Teachers have been advised in the guidance titled “Sharing the Journey” that “for some Muslim parents, sensitivities may exist in connection with the teaching of aspects of art, dance, drama, music, physical education, religious education and RSHE.”
It goes on to say: “It is very important that the school understands this and is also careful not to ask its students to reproduce images of Jesus, the Prophet Mohammed or other figures considered to be prophets in Islam. Some Muslim pupils may not wish to draw the human figure.”
On top of this ridiculous and censorious guidance, the Government this week announced its official definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” — effectively a Muslim blasphemy law.
In a free society, no religion should be shielded from legitimate criticism and challenge — let alone by children.
This is sick and sinister.
Read more below 👇
English
crazy!
Adrian Hilton@Adrian_Hilton
“It is very important that the school understands this and is also careful not to ask its students to reproduce images of Jesus, Prophet Mohammed or other figures considered to be prophets in Islam.” Sharia censorship now official in English state schools. new.calderdale.gov.uk/sites/default/…
English