roby-b.bsky.social
ID doc (MGH), PI (Broad Institute), antibiotic resistance resister, sepsis immune profiler, COVID doc, husband, dad. Coffee, tennis, kindness, science, & sleep enthusiast. Here to learn, as that other place devolves. Views mine. | bhattacharyyalab.org
472 posts
8,155 followers
1,215 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Second (takes deep breath)
It appears that PAYMENTS FOR ALL GRANTS THROUGH THE PAYMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ARE BEING FROZEN.
If this is correct, then no funds will be transferred to any grantee institution, at least at this time.
comment in response to
post
I mean, I know who at least one of his fans is (sorry, this is snarkier than I usually am on SoMe): bsky.app/profile/getr...
comment in response to
post
I've received additional confirmation, as well as an email I can share publicly.
See the directive NIH grants management staff received from Michelle Bulls, director of extramural policy at NIH:
comment in response to
post
that's a great sign
comment in response to
post
Somehow the news blackout made it more stark: I took off thinking he'd probably win, but not sure; I'd either land in a world w too many people afraid to pull that lever in private; or not. I was so happy... not sure I'll ever see things that simply again (maybe I should've known better even then).
comment in response to
post
I was on a plane to South Africa for a rotation at Edendale, voted in the morning en route to airport. Couldn't get news midair in 2008, but the pilots announced the outcome & everyone cheered. I remember thinking it would tell me what kind of country we were... little did I know what was to come...
comment in response to
post
Dr Joshua Davis presents data on Cefazolin vs (Flu)cloxacillin for MSSA.
1. Cefazolin is non-inferior.
2. Less AKI with Cefazolin.
#ESCMIDGlobal
comment in response to
post
On my list for some time too, but never has quite fit w young kids at home....
comment in response to
post
Good grief, I'm so sorry to hear this. The academic science community owes you so much for all you've done this year.
comment in response to
post
"decision-based evidence making" is how I've heard this described
comment in response to
post
/solidarity slackmoji/
comment in response to
post
are... you sure about your use of past tense?
comment in response to
post
(but yeah, no, I agree, everything sucks rn)
comment in response to
post
That’s clearly an overstatement. But I’m pretty persuaded that the effect of the vaccine is likely real and causal.
comment in response to
post
Idk, wouldn’t power reduction be a better argument if they didn’t find an effect?
comment in response to
post
Random chance, though? Yeah, that remains possible. Chance can do a lot of things.
But if I had to bet, I’d bet this effect is real. I also think this type of evidence is the best we get; I can’t imagine an RCT of the shingles vax in this age grp anymore
comment in response to
post
This part (effect size smaller vs dementia than vs shingles) isn’t at all implausible. There will certainly be many causes of dementia; this may be only one contributor.
comment in response to
post
Idk, I think it’s more implausible that another childhood event caused a difference the same week an arbitrary decision abt vaccines was made 80 yrs later, but not that same week in other years. Again, it’s the arbitrariness of the threshold I find convincing here
comment in response to
post
I see "arbitrary thresholds" as different in this way than, say, discontinuities that arise from decisions made to start/stop an intervention due to changing conditions, where I see more chance of confounding...
Like this left-digit bias in CABG outcomes, which this paper reminded me of:
comment in response to
post
Interesting. I don't think the claim is (or at least, should be) "shingles causes dementia"...but I do see this as hypothesis-generating re inflammation & brain health?
And I like the "arbitrary threshold" approach for causal inference, in general. But she's an expert in causal inference & I'm not!
comment in response to
post
Huh, I found the study convincing. Main confounder I saw in her post was abt the chosen birthdate coinciding w a 1-yr difference in starting school. But the effect was only seen in that birth year, not prior; & emerged for that birth cohort only in the year the vaccine was offered, not prior years.
comment in response to
post
I agree w biological plausibility that reactivation could contribute.
comment in response to
post
Cool! Does the lack of an effect in populations split around that same birthdate but in prior years, or in years preceding 2013 when the vaccine was introduced, allay your concern about the "September effect" of the diff in age at school onset? (Not sure if that control was part of the preprint.)