Jean Fisch
@jeanfisch.bsky.social
1.7K followers 300 following 1.8K posts
Analysis, rationalism & objectivity are my sins
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
jeanfisch.bsky.social
I remember a famous quote by a former editor-in-chief of Bild (the largest tabloid in Europe)

"I don't mind publishing fake news: This makes for two attention grabbing (and paper selling) pieces: the sensational claim and then the sensational retraction"

Yep

END
jeanfisch.bsky.social
You think this is a one-off mistake by @springernature.com? Well, I have seen even worse from them this morning ...

This paper puts in its title "covid infections increases risk of cancer" ... because of a comparison of cancer rates based on infx status in 2020 ... yep

4/

bsky.app/profile/jean...
jeanfisch.bsky.social
This study compared 3 yrs on the cancer rate among women infx / not infx .... in 2020 without a word on the near-100% prob of everybody being infx by 2024

Conclusion? "Covid infx increases HPV linked cancer risk by 30%"

How on earth can that pass any @springernature.com peer-review ?!?
jeanfisch.bsky.social
And we are not talking here about dubious scientific publications with headquarters in the Cayman Islands and a postal address somewhere in a shoddy part of London

We are talking of a @springernature.com journal in the case of the Korean "study" !!!

3/
jeanfisch.bsky.social
And the reason why I put the blame firmly on the scientific journals here is because BASIC sanity checks ("do we see the supposed effect at population level also in the published population level data?") would have shown that the studies' claims were baseless

2/
jeanfisch.bsky.social
A TV program in France: Glitter, cool hosts, banter-y atmosphere

An attractive presenter reports on new scientific findings: Two pop level studies found a link between cancer and covid vax

Let me blunt: This fake news is caused by scientific journals not properly doing peer-review
jeanfisch.bsky.social
OK, thanks for the quick reply - I was wondering!
jeanfisch.bsky.social
Marc, you don't mention anything about design which makes me doubt: Is it me or the study who missed something fundamental?

bsky.app/profile/jean...
jeanfisch.bsky.social
This study compared 3 yrs on the cancer rate among women infx / not infx .... in 2020 without a word on the near-100% prob of everybody being infx by 2024

Conclusion? "Covid infx increases HPV linked cancer risk by 30%"

How on earth can that pass any @springernature.com peer-review ?!?
jeanfisch.bsky.social
SARS-CoV-2 infection heightens the risk of developing HPV-related carcinoma in situ and cancer - Discover Oncology
Objective This study aims to investigate the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on HPV-related cancer and carcinoma in situ. Method We utilized data from TriNetX, a database encompassing 106 healthcare organizations spanning 15 countries and comprising information from over 124 million participants. Propensity score matching was utilized to compare two cohorts: SARS-CoV-2 infection and non- SARS-CoV-2 infection groups. The cohorts consisted of females aged 18–90 with no previous history of HPV-related cancers before SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020 and no HPV vaccine before 2020. We utilized Cox proportional hazard regression analysis to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were performed based on age and race to validate the findings. Results The study included a total of 4,872,295 patients, with 1,281,997 in the SARS-CoV-2 infection group and 3,590,298 in the non-infection group. After propensity score matching, both groups comprised 1,281,997 patients each. Over a 3-year follow-up period, individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection had significantly higher risks of developing HPV-related cancers compared to those without infection: a 67% increase in cervical cancer, 131% in vaginal cancer, 98% in vulvar cancer, 92% in anal cancer, and 78% in oropharyngeal cancer. Similar trends were observed for carcinoma in situ, with increased risks of 34% for cervical, 61% for vaginal, 74% for vulvar, 96% for anal, and 78% for oropharyngeal carcinoma in situ. Subgroup analyses stratified by age and race demonstrated consistent results. Conclusion SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with elevated risks of HPV-related carcinoma in situ and cancer, irrespective of age or race. The findings underscore the importance of understanding the interplay between viral infections and cancer development, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
link.springer.com
jeanfisch.bsky.social
This study compared 3 yrs on the cancer rate among women infx / not infx .... in 2020 without a word on the near-100% prob of everybody being infx by 2024

Conclusion? "Covid infx increases HPV linked cancer risk by 30%"

How on earth can that pass any @springernature.com peer-review ?!?
jeanfisch.bsky.social
I see this piece by @whippletom.bsky.social only now: It's brilliant, insightful and entertaining!

What is so hard to understand is that
- confounders can be insidiously hidden
- it is often impossible to prove NO association

Uncertainty is life's middle name

www.thetimes.com/article/766f...
What’s the truth about paracetamol and autism? It can be confounding
Sometimes you need to dig deeper into the data but often it comes down to how you want to interpret it
www.thetimes.com
Reposted by Jean Fisch
jeanfisch.bsky.social
One other thing about that study of cancer incidences by vax status in South Korea

I don't think this paper is formally peer-reviewed (yet?): It's clearly marked as correspondence and written as letter to the editors
jeanfisch.bsky.social
One other thing about that study of cancer incidences by vax status in South Korea

I don't think this paper is formally peer-reviewed (yet?): It's clearly marked as correspondence and written as letter to the editors
jeanfisch.bsky.social
Of course average age is incomplete - But all I wanted to show is that the image one may get that covid "killed at the very end of the age spectrum" is not accurate

(as I wrote on the chart, this is calculated based on deaths by age group / Istat shares daily deaths by 21 age groups by commune)
jeanfisch.bsky.social
Evolution of average age at death in arguably the hardest hit region in Europe, Bergamo

Covid hardly affected the average of death despite being skewed to the very old and with multiple comorbidities

Why? Because, on average, death is skewed towards that population group
jeanfisch.bsky.social
There was some confusion over on Twitter about until when the data goes so I redid the chart for clarity

The fact that the data goes up to 2022 is why it demonstrates that the study found a fake effect:
- 90% of adults were vaccinated by Oct 2021
- so the 27% impact should be seen in the 2022 data
jeanfisch.bsky.social
This study of the Seoul population found a 27% increase in cancer diagnoses among vaxed within 1yr of vax

As 80%+ are vaxed, ONE LOOK at South Korea's cancer register would have shown that this cannot be real so is a analysis issue / vaccinee bias
biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10....
jeanfisch.bsky.social
15% of all deaths being covid should be a red flag really ... Thanks for the detailed analysis
jeanfisch.bsky.social
Warning: this is a dangerous report

You will be drawn into its pack of "aha"moments and, without noticing, it'll be two hours later :-)
statsgeekclare.bsky.social
New CMO report out today on health trends and variation in England. My team delivered this using a RAP developed in R, which made a nice change from lots of people running around putting numbers into excel then pasting into powerpoint... Was not without challenges though! www.gov.uk/government/p...
Health trends and variation in England 2025: a Chief Medical Officer report
An overview of the health of England’s population, including trends over time and geographical variation.
www.gov.uk
jeanfisch.bsky.social
Wow, that's quite a report! Well done to you and your colleagues!
jeanfisch.bsky.social
I have this standard chart, it's per 100k

The figures I come to are
2020: 67k
2021: 43k
2022: 34k
2023: 8k
2024-2025: negative

LT Mortality Trend = 2013-2019
jeanfisch.bsky.social
This data is assembled using
- Deaths occurrences as reported by England+Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, corrected for late reporting (I have a full tool using 5-8 years of data)
- Population estimates as per latest actuals and national population projections for each nation
jeanfisch.bsky.social
On excess mortality in the UK: Here the weekly death occurrences vs. expected from 2013-2019 mortality rate trend by age band

NB:
(a) Actuals are by DATE OF DEATH, not date of registration as ONS does
(b) Expected are per PRE-PANDEMIC TREND, not using pandemic years as ONS does
jeanfisch.bsky.social
Well, that would be the conclusion of this eminent Harvard Professor (and Dean of the Public Health faculty no less!)

The issue with that Tylenol vs Autism study is as fundamental (and quite frankly basic) as that

It's quite extraordinary really ...

END
jeanfisch.bsky.social
Just to show the absurdity of the analysis - Imagine

- 45 studies of looking at Venus through a beer bottle finds evidence of rings around Venus

- 1 study of looking at Venus through a telescope finds no rings

Would you conclude "there is evidence that Venus has rings"?
jeanfisch.bsky.social
What the professor did was a meta-analysis and considered all the above studies to be relevant

Invariably, he concluded "we found evidence" and this is clearly at the heart of the US administration's claim (cf. this tweet and explanation by the prof)

x.com/PressSec/sta...