Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis
@siderea.bsky.social
Psychotherapist-programmer musician-historian outsider-anthropologist healthcare-blogger science-explainer social critic essay-essayer and soothsayer. Professional wisewoman and amateur wiseass.
There's a phenomenon where when someone is dragged in public for something, some reprehensible creep shows up all, "There, there. Those ignorant peasants are wronging you, but I've got your back". Maybe Epstein seized on Summers' controversy as an opportunity to court Summers as a pal.
November 18, 2025 at 4:48 AM
There's a phenomenon where when someone is dragged in public for something, some reprehensible creep shows up all, "There, there. Those ignorant peasants are wronging you, but I've got your back". Maybe Epstein seized on Summers' controversy as an opportunity to court Summers as a pal.
Thank you for bringing it to my attention - how delicious!
November 8, 2025 at 10:55 PM
Thank you for bringing it to my attention - how delicious!
Nah, it wasn't that one day people got weird. Those ads were for cis men, who, obvs, society says can do no wrong. Cis women taking hormones of any kind has always been controversial. Q.v. birth control, eliminating periods, and the whole "HRT causes cancer" moral panic.
October 22, 2025 at 10:13 PM
Nah, it wasn't that one day people got weird. Those ads were for cis men, who, obvs, society says can do no wrong. Cis women taking hormones of any kind has always been controversial. Q.v. birth control, eliminating periods, and the whole "HRT causes cancer" moral panic.
Paper says the opposite: rare genetic versions of disease are being misdiagnosed as commoner forms of the disease - a finding which is way less surprising.
This is in keeping with the whole idea of Personalized Medicine, which had a moment ~2 decades ago, then stopped being cool for some reason.
This is in keeping with the whole idea of Personalized Medicine, which had a moment ~2 decades ago, then stopped being cool for some reason.
October 22, 2025 at 9:41 PM
Paper says the opposite: rare genetic versions of disease are being misdiagnosed as commoner forms of the disease - a finding which is way less surprising.
This is in keeping with the whole idea of Personalized Medicine, which had a moment ~2 decades ago, then stopped being cool for some reason.
This is in keeping with the whole idea of Personalized Medicine, which had a moment ~2 decades ago, then stopped being cool for some reason.
Don't be dishonest. You said that in a context, so its meaning is mediated by that context.
October 20, 2025 at 2:08 AM
Don't be dishonest. You said that in a context, so its meaning is mediated by that context.
But that's not what you're saying, is it?
I know this is the first time you've ever heard someone criticize what you've been lead to believe is good evidence-based practice.
But you've been lead to believe smth that is obviously logically unsound, and I invited you to re-examine it w skepticism.
I know this is the first time you've ever heard someone criticize what you've been lead to believe is good evidence-based practice.
But you've been lead to believe smth that is obviously logically unsound, and I invited you to re-examine it w skepticism.
October 20, 2025 at 2:03 AM
But that's not what you're saying, is it?
I know this is the first time you've ever heard someone criticize what you've been lead to believe is good evidence-based practice.
But you've been lead to believe smth that is obviously logically unsound, and I invited you to re-examine it w skepticism.
I know this is the first time you've ever heard someone criticize what you've been lead to believe is good evidence-based practice.
But you've been lead to believe smth that is obviously logically unsound, and I invited you to re-examine it w skepticism.
This is how the logic you espouse kills people. Typically to save someone else a buck.
October 20, 2025 at 1:58 AM
This is how the logic you espouse kills people. Typically to save someone else a buck.
Of course, subsequently, the RTC was in fact performed demonstrating that Gardasil is efficacious at preventing cervical cancer in 30-something-year-olds.
In the intervening decade, some number of them went to their graves for want of a vaccine that "wasn't proven".
In the intervening decade, some number of them went to their graves for want of a vaccine that "wasn't proven".
October 20, 2025 at 1:57 AM
Of course, subsequently, the RTC was in fact performed demonstrating that Gardasil is efficacious at preventing cervical cancer in 30-something-year-olds.
In the intervening decade, some number of them went to their graves for want of a vaccine that "wasn't proven".
In the intervening decade, some number of them went to their graves for want of a vaccine that "wasn't proven".
But third party payers were happy to stand on the grounds that Gardasil had not been proven via RCT to be efficacious in slightly older patients, therefore it was off label and they didn't have to pay for it.
October 20, 2025 at 1:56 AM
But third party payers were happy to stand on the grounds that Gardasil had not been proven via RCT to be efficacious in slightly older patients, therefore it was off label and they didn't have to pay for it.
Certainly, we ordinarily assume RTCs on one population are evidence of efficacy in others, the most famous example of course being drug trials on male patients being extrapolated to be pertinent to female patients, on whom the drug was never tested.
October 20, 2025 at 1:54 AM
Certainly, we ordinarily assume RTCs on one population are evidence of efficacy in others, the most famous example of course being drug trials on male patients being extrapolated to be pertinent to female patients, on whom the drug was never tested.
There was no particular reason to believe that the HPV vaccine would stop working when one turned 30, and the evidence it worked to prevent cancer in 20yos could certainly have been construed as evidence it works in older populations.
October 20, 2025 at 1:53 AM
There was no particular reason to believe that the HPV vaccine would stop working when one turned 30, and the evidence it worked to prevent cancer in 20yos could certainly have been construed as evidence it works in older populations.
For example, some interesting but uncounted (though countable) number of people died in the US of cervical cancer, bc the initial RCTs of HPV vax only tested on adults up to iirc 28yo, so insurance would not cover the shot for pts over that age.
October 20, 2025 at 1:51 AM
For example, some interesting but uncounted (though countable) number of people died in the US of cervical cancer, bc the initial RCTs of HPV vax only tested on adults up to iirc 28yo, so insurance would not cover the shot for pts over that age.
We see this most clearly in medicine, where lack of conclusive proof of efficacy is used as justification for withholding treatments that have lesser but still compelling scientific evidence – by third party payers, such as insurance, NHS, etc.
October 20, 2025 at 1:49 AM
We see this most clearly in medicine, where lack of conclusive proof of efficacy is used as justification for withholding treatments that have lesser but still compelling scientific evidence – by third party payers, such as insurance, NHS, etc.
Here in reality, we must make ethical decisions in the absence of perfect certainty. To insist on waiting for conclusive evidence is to procrastinate ethics, which is to say to abdicate them.
October 20, 2025 at 1:45 AM
Here in reality, we must make ethical decisions in the absence of perfect certainty. To insist on waiting for conclusive evidence is to procrastinate ethics, which is to say to abdicate them.
True, but irrelevant. The idea that we should only act on proven certainty is tantamount to the cognitive bias that Type II errors don't exist, and have the pragmatic upshot of being a bias in favor of the status quo, which is to say the already disproportionately as advantaged.
October 20, 2025 at 1:43 AM
True, but irrelevant. The idea that we should only act on proven certainty is tantamount to the cognitive bias that Type II errors don't exist, and have the pragmatic upshot of being a bias in favor of the status quo, which is to say the already disproportionately as advantaged.
Nominally, interest on rental deposits is legally mandatory in Massachusetts.
Admittedly, the letter of the law can be fulfilled with a 0.01% account, so you're not making real money.
Admittedly, the letter of the law can be fulfilled with a 0.01% account, so you're not making real money.
October 20, 2025 at 1:15 AM
Nominally, interest on rental deposits is legally mandatory in Massachusetts.
Admittedly, the letter of the law can be fulfilled with a 0.01% account, so you're not making real money.
Admittedly, the letter of the law can be fulfilled with a 0.01% account, so you're not making real money.
(Medicaid instead of Medicare, bc Medicaid is what pays for long-term nursing home care even for the elderly, once their finances are wiped out by needing long-term nursing care.
October 20, 2025 at 12:51 AM
(Medicaid instead of Medicare, bc Medicaid is what pays for long-term nursing home care even for the elderly, once their finances are wiped out by needing long-term nursing care.
Given that golf courses are a public health hazard - living near or working on golf courses leads to elevated risk of Parkinson's Disease - that tax money needs to go right into Medicaid to fund the care of people bankrupted by the economic devastation of PD.
jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...
jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...
Proximity to Golf Courses and Risk of Parkinson Disease
This case-control of older US adults examines risk of Parkinson Disease by proximity of residence to a golf course.
jamanetwork.com
October 20, 2025 at 12:49 AM
Given that golf courses are a public health hazard - living near or working on golf courses leads to elevated risk of Parkinson's Disease - that tax money needs to go right into Medicaid to fund the care of people bankrupted by the economic devastation of PD.
jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...
jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...
How much time do you find yourself spending to check that what you're being told isn't a hallucination?
October 16, 2025 at 7:39 PM
How much time do you find yourself spending to check that what you're being told isn't a hallucination?
Why would this work? Does it work? Have you tried it? AIs are the laziest searchers and default to the most mainstream of corporate media.
October 16, 2025 at 7:30 PM
Why would this work? Does it work? Have you tried it? AIs are the laziest searchers and default to the most mainstream of corporate media.
Frankly, it seems most likely they have you and other YouTubers they sponsor repeating a false claim, but, hey, if they know something I don't, I would love to know about it.
I cannot stress enough what a big deal this would be if true.
5/5
I cannot stress enough what a big deal this would be if true.
5/5
October 13, 2025 at 6:58 PM
Frankly, it seems most likely they have you and other YouTubers they sponsor repeating a false claim, but, hey, if they know something I don't, I would love to know about it.
I cannot stress enough what a big deal this would be if true.
5/5
I cannot stress enough what a big deal this would be if true.
5/5