It's funny what @angie_rasmussen can come up with.
One of the peer-reviewers of her paper was actually rather upset by the cynical propaganda blitz, that was totally unjustified in his opinion (3/4 reviewers had issues with that paper).
I released his comments some time ago.
By Angie keeps pretending that the silly paper she co-authored is still standing, despite having been found void in its claims due to bad spatial statistics, faulty Monte Carlo and a ridiculous interpretation of a bias effect,
x.com/gdemaneuf/status/1849969039327756480
The best is really the point about non-epidemiologically linked cases being on average closer to the market being supposedly an argument for an absence of reporting bias:
You can't explain it without a contorted scenario if you suppose no reporting bias.
But it is a direct result of the reporting heuristic applied at the time.
Reporting is known to have been based on a mix of epidemiological link and/or distance to the market.
As a result, no known epidemiological link required closer distance to the market for clearing the reporting hurdle.
Only an incompetent scientist would keep saying, as Angie again recently did in a podcast, that this artefact is a proof of an absence of reporting bias, when it is the actual very proof of its presence, in perfect alignment with the facts on the ground.
Anti-science at its best.
Gilles Demaneuf
@gdemaneuf
Pointy Head. Opinions, analyses and views expressed are purely mine and should not in any way be characterised as representing any institution or company.