Tijl De Bie
@tijldebie.bsky.social
Prof in Artificial Intelligence
AIDA-IDLab, Ghent University
European Research Council Advanced Grantee
https://aida.ugent.be
https://doordenkers.be
http://wintermanifest.be
https://lentesymposium.net
Posts in my own name.
AIDA-IDLab, Ghent University
European Research Council Advanced Grantee
https://aida.ugent.be
https://doordenkers.be
http://wintermanifest.be
https://lentesymposium.net
Posts in my own name.
Registration is free but mandatory (for logistical reasons) on one of the following websites:
event.ugent.be/registration...
www.meetup.com/ugentdss/eve...
event.ugent.be/registration...
www.meetup.com/ugentdss/eve...
Event Registration
event.ugent.be
May 1, 2025 at 5:51 PM
Registration is free but mandatory (for logistical reasons) on one of the following websites:
event.ugent.be/registration...
www.meetup.com/ugentdss/eve...
event.ugent.be/registration...
www.meetup.com/ugentdss/eve...
Any suggestions on what I should do next?
Any academic journals that would consider publishing this story (with more details)?
Any traditional media?
Suggestions welcome!
Any academic journals that would consider publishing this story (with more details)?
Any traditional media?
Suggestions welcome!
February 3, 2025 at 9:06 PM
Any suggestions on what I should do next?
Any academic journals that would consider publishing this story (with more details)?
Any traditional media?
Suggestions welcome!
Any academic journals that would consider publishing this story (with more details)?
Any traditional media?
Suggestions welcome!
So far I have not publicly communicated much about my interactions with the parties involved, hoping they would simply set the record straight as any self-respecting scientist would. Unfortunately, that hope appears to be increasingly unjustified.
February 3, 2025 at 9:06 PM
So far I have not publicly communicated much about my interactions with the parties involved, hoping they would simply set the record straight as any self-respecting scientist would. Unfortunately, that hope appears to be increasingly unjustified.
This is particularly concerning as there's healthcare policy implications of the error, and as the authors are from the very institutes that provide direct policy advice to our governments.
February 3, 2025 at 9:06 PM
This is particularly concerning as there's healthcare policy implications of the error, and as the authors are from the very institutes that provide direct policy advice to our governments.
To be clear: I'm not contesting any assumptions here, I'm pointing out an undisputable error. This is not about a scientific disagreement or a different perspective, but about a lack of basic scientific integrity, the obstinate unwillingness to own an error and put things right.
February 3, 2025 at 9:06 PM
To be clear: I'm not contesting any assumptions here, I'm pointing out an undisputable error. This is not about a scientific disagreement or a different perspective, but about a lack of basic scientific integrity, the obstinate unwillingness to own an error and put things right.
All of them responded that they feel they handled this well (I beg to differ), that I can request access to the data if I want to do a re-analysis (which I had done early on, but got no response to), and that assumptions can always disputed.
February 3, 2025 at 9:06 PM
All of them responded that they feel they handled this well (I beg to differ), that I can request access to the data if I want to do a re-analysis (which I had done early on, but got no response to), and that assumptions can always disputed.
After raising my concern about this with several of the authors in personal communications (to no avail), I complained with some of their institutes about this lack of scientific integrity.
February 3, 2025 at 9:06 PM
After raising my concern about this with several of the authors in personal communications (to no avail), I complained with some of their institutes about this lack of scientific integrity.
The authors also did not revisit their booster-policy assessment in their response (they don't even mention it), even though the support for it all but vanished. They also failed to do a correct re-analysis themselves, even though it would be quick for them to do and to include in their response.
February 3, 2025 at 9:06 PM
The authors also did not revisit their booster-policy assessment in their response (they don't even mention it), even though the support for it all but vanished. They also failed to do a correct re-analysis themselves, even though it would be quick for them to do and to include in their response.
The authors wrote an authors' response to my Letter, published alongside it. Astonishingly, in it they misrepresented my Letter, pretending that I merely argued that their formulation was 'ambiguous':
thelancet.com/journals/lan...
thelancet.com/journals/lan...
Incorrect interpretation of the role of COVID-19 vaccination boosters in saving lives – Authors' reply
In our Article, we estimated that between December, 2020, and March, 2023, COVID-19
vaccines directly saved at least 1·6 million lives in those aged 25 years or older,
in 34 of 54 countries, areas, an...
thelancet.com
February 3, 2025 at 9:06 PM
The authors wrote an authors' response to my Letter, published alongside it. Astonishingly, in it they misrepresented my Letter, pretending that I merely argued that their formulation was 'ambiguous':
thelancet.com/journals/lan...
thelancet.com/journals/lan...
Within days after publication of their paper, I pointed out their error in a private communication, and submitted this Letter to the journal (which took ages to get published):
thelancet.com/journals/lan...
thelancet.com/journals/lan...
Incorrect interpretation of the role of COVID-19 vaccination boosters in saving lives
In their Article, Margaux M I Meslé and colleagues studied the number of European
deaths averted by COVID-19 vaccination from December, 2020, to March, 2023.1 They
conclude that the “first boosters sa...
thelancet.com
February 3, 2025 at 9:06 PM
Within days after publication of their paper, I pointed out their error in a private communication, and submitted this Letter to the journal (which took ages to get published):
thelancet.com/journals/lan...
thelancet.com/journals/lan...
Tiny problem:
The conclusion they drew from their analyses is completely wrong. They made a basic error that inflated the importance of the booster doses by an order of magnitude, relative to the impact of the primary course.
Oops... 😬
The conclusion they drew from their analyses is completely wrong. They made a basic error that inflated the importance of the booster doses by an order of magnitude, relative to the impact of the primary course.
Oops... 😬
February 3, 2025 at 9:06 PM
Tiny problem:
The conclusion they drew from their analyses is completely wrong. They made a basic error that inflated the importance of the booster doses by an order of magnitude, relative to the impact of the primary course.
Oops... 😬
The conclusion they drew from their analyses is completely wrong. They made a basic error that inflated the importance of the booster doses by an order of magnitude, relative to the impact of the primary course.
Oops... 😬
They concluded that half of all European lives 'saved' by the Covid19-vaccines were saved by dose 3 (see 1st screenshot). They saw this as a direct cause for concern about current low booster uptakes, and strong support for the current booster recommendations (see 2nd screenshot).
February 3, 2025 at 9:06 PM
They concluded that half of all European lives 'saved' by the Covid19-vaccines were saved by dose 3 (see 1st screenshot). They saw this as a direct cause for concern about current low booster uptakes, and strong support for the current booster recommendations (see 2nd screenshot).
With all respect, but in an honest debate it is important to engage with the best possible argument against your position.
Most people critical of "factchecking" are not against "the freedom to call bullshit". They are against creating a privileged subsidized class of people with exclusive rights.
Most people critical of "factchecking" are not against "the freedom to call bullshit". They are against creating a privileged subsidized class of people with exclusive rights.
January 15, 2025 at 7:26 AM
With all respect, but in an honest debate it is important to engage with the best possible argument against your position.
Most people critical of "factchecking" are not against "the freedom to call bullshit". They are against creating a privileged subsidized class of people with exclusive rights.
Most people critical of "factchecking" are not against "the freedom to call bullshit". They are against creating a privileged subsidized class of people with exclusive rights.
De brief zelf kan je hier lezen:
belgianuniversitiesforpalestine.wordpress.com
En de lijst ondertekenaars:
belgianuniversitiesforpalestine.wordpress.com/prominent-si...
belgianuniversitiesforpalestine.wordpress.com
En de lijst ondertekenaars:
belgianuniversitiesforpalestine.wordpress.com/prominent-si...
Belgian Universities For PAlestine (EN)
belgianuniversitiesforpalestine.wordpress.com
January 15, 2025 at 7:21 AM
De brief zelf kan je hier lezen:
belgianuniversitiesforpalestine.wordpress.com
En de lijst ondertekenaars:
belgianuniversitiesforpalestine.wordpress.com/prominent-si...
belgianuniversitiesforpalestine.wordpress.com
En de lijst ondertekenaars:
belgianuniversitiesforpalestine.wordpress.com/prominent-si...
6) Het gaat mijn petje te boven hoe het kan dat de EU onze privacy op een dienblaadje kan weggeven ad VS, tégen het advies in vh enige democratische orgaan dat Europa rijk is, en dat amper iemand dit lijkt te weten, laat staan dat de verantwoordelijken erover uitgebreid op de rooster zijn gelegd.
January 12, 2025 at 7:24 PM
6) Het gaat mijn petje te boven hoe het kan dat de EU onze privacy op een dienblaadje kan weggeven ad VS, tégen het advies in vh enige democratische orgaan dat Europa rijk is, en dat amper iemand dit lijkt te weten, laat staan dat de verantwoordelijken erover uitgebreid op de rooster zijn gelegd.
5) Die EP-resolutie, die dus meer dan terecht tégen deze nefaste beslissing van de @ec.europa.eu adviseerde, kreeg 306 voorstemmen, en slechts 27 tegenstemmen waaronder van twee Belgen: #GeertBourgeois en #JohanVanOvertveldt van de #NVA.
Ik geef het maar even mee.
Ik geef het maar even mee.
January 12, 2025 at 7:24 PM
5) Die EP-resolutie, die dus meer dan terecht tégen deze nefaste beslissing van de @ec.europa.eu adviseerde, kreeg 306 voorstemmen, en slechts 27 tegenstemmen waaronder van twee Belgen: #GeertBourgeois en #JohanVanOvertveldt van de #NVA.
Ik geef het maar even mee.
Ik geef het maar even mee.
4) Dit ondanks zeer sterke tegenstand van het @euparliament.bsky.social (dat in deze enkel kon adviseren - lang leve de Europese democratische waarden 🥳), zie deze resolutie:
europarl.europa.eu/doceo/docume...
europarl.europa.eu/doceo/docume...
Texts adopted - Adequacy of the protection afforded by the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework - Thursday, 11 May 2023
europarl.europa.eu
January 12, 2025 at 7:24 PM
4) Dit ondanks zeer sterke tegenstand van het @euparliament.bsky.social (dat in deze enkel kon adviseren - lang leve de Europese democratische waarden 🥳), zie deze resolutie:
europarl.europa.eu/doceo/docume...
europarl.europa.eu/doceo/docume...
3) Toch oordeelde de Europese Commissie (EC) in 7/2023, olv @vonderleyen.ec.europa.eu en Eurocommissaris van Justitie #DidierReynders, dat FISA Section 702 geen beletsel is om de manier waarop de VS met Europese data omgaat standaard conform de GDPR te verklaren:
commission.europa.eu/document/fa0...
commission.europa.eu/document/fa0...
Adequacy decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework | European Commissionen
commission.europa.eu
January 12, 2025 at 7:24 PM
3) Toch oordeelde de Europese Commissie (EC) in 7/2023, olv @vonderleyen.ec.europa.eu en Eurocommissaris van Justitie #DidierReynders, dat FISA Section 702 geen beletsel is om de manier waarop de VS met Europese data omgaat standaard conform de GDPR te verklaren:
commission.europa.eu/document/fa0...
commission.europa.eu/document/fa0...
2) Relevanter voor Europese staatsburgers is dat FISA Section 702 sowieso ongebreidelde spionage toelaat op niet-Amerikanen, bvb wanneer die gebruikmaken van Amerikaanse communicatieapps (email, berichten,...), sociale media platforms, cloud hosting providers,...
January 12, 2025 at 7:24 PM
2) Relevanter voor Europese staatsburgers is dat FISA Section 702 sowieso ongebreidelde spionage toelaat op niet-Amerikanen, bvb wanneer die gebruikmaken van Amerikaanse communicatieapps (email, berichten,...), sociale media platforms, cloud hosting providers,...