We recommend you correct this analysis, as it is delaying adoption of a highly effective treatment, literally killing people. The main mistakes: 1. it's 1/50 vs 13/26. A 98% reduction in odds ratio, not 90%. 2. The ICU decision committee was not aware of patient status. 3...
-
-
Replying to @Rootclaim @GidMK
3. The small sample is of little relevance once p-value and CI were established. 4. There is nothing weird with 100% completion when all you're doing is giving a safe oral treatment once every few days and counting ICU admissions. 5...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Rootclaim @GidMK
5. The difference in hypertension has been corrected for and accounts for only a small part of the strong effect. 6. Waiting for better data is an horrendous decision. We must evaluate the effect of the biases, their likelihood, and the risk/benefit of each decision.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Rootclaim @GidMK
Please correct these mistakes, as they are very harmful during a pandemic. See here our full analysis: https://blog.rootclaim.com/vitamin-d-can-likely-end-the-covid-19-pandemic/ … And we are also offering a $100,000 challenge to back up our analysis. https://blog.rootclaim.com/treating-covid-19-with-vitamin-d-100000-challenge/ … Thank you!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Rootclaim
I replied elsewhere. This is spam and very annoying
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @Rootclaim
Health Nerd Retweeted Health Nerd
Health Nerd added,
Health NerdVerified account @GidMKReplying to @RootclaimIn order: 1. that's why I used the ~ sign for "roughly" or "about" 2. unclear 3. wrong 4. yes there is. Similar trials have at least a few patients drop out 5. where has it been accounted for? 6. emotive appeal, not a mistake with my analysis1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @Rootclaim
1. The mistake was in using 13/50 instead of 13/26 and in comparing probabilities rather than odds. 2. We verified it with the authors. 3. Please provide an example where a small sample fails despite a strong p-value. 4...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
4. Where is the challenge in giving to 50 hospitalized patients a safe oral treatment every few days? Why would anyone drop out? 5. Search "multivariate logistic regression" in the paper. 6...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
6. The point is that in a pandemic, we don't have the luxury of waiting for absolute certainty, we need to make the best decision for patients using the best information we have. 7. Please do not block people making an honest scientific discussion on matters of such importance.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @saarwilf @Rootclaim
If you don't want people to block, I'd suggest refraining from tweeting the same tweets several times. I just automatically block that these days, it's very annoying
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Anyway, more broadly you haven't actually addressed anything I've said aside from the ICU admission point. If you've confirmed with the authors, I'd recommend that they request a revision from the journal specifying that this was the case because it is currently unclear
-
-
The p-value point is a misunderstanding of the problem with small samples (it's not all about 'significance'). This is mirrored in the response to point 5 - this sample is FAR too small to run a multivariable logistic regression, all you'd get is noise if you adjusted
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
As ever, I'm not making any firm claims, I'm pointing out the limitations of the evidence - claiming that this study is firm proof of anything is quite obviously incorrect. Whether or not that should impact clinical decision-making is another debate entirely
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.