[javagram]

It’s not an ad hominem. He’s stated his position in the past quite clearly in multiple journal articles and no real reason to believe he’s changed his approach. As far as “similar”, his approach led to a calculation of 0.15% IFR whereas others argued for a 0.5-0.6% IFR. I think most would consider that a significant difference. Ioannidis himself does since he harshly criticized others who reported the higher numbers. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-j...

[Gibbon1]

I read his paper in 2020 and it was not even wrong. Which for me put him into the 'lies about stuff' category. And when a when a source is known to lie you should weight everything they say with a weight of zero.

Their statement * 0 = nothing.

See the legal principal Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything).

[busymom0]

You still haven’t pointed out what’s actually wrong with his study and findings. Starting off your comment with attacking the author instead of pointing out what’s wrong with the study is very clearly ad hominem.