I actually disagree with that claim, though. A single study can be fraudulent much, much more easily than a dozen of them can be. Yes, there are some soft endpoints, not a lot of placebos, many open-label studies, occasional vague reporting. Maybe focus on just mortality.
-
-
Replying to @__ice9
Fraud is rare and not my main issue. Bad studies that cannot answer the question are ubiquitous, and do not actually give you any useful information on the issue at hand
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
ice9 Retweeted ice9
I think that is a very absolutist view. EBM is important. EBM purity spirals are harmful.https://twitter.com/__ice9/status/1328856819742232576?s=19 …
ice9 added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @__ice9
There is a complex equation that includes a very careful evaluation of the evidence at hand to guide decision-making. But when the best evidence is truly woeful, the only real conclusion you can make is that you don't know enough to make a decision
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
I do not believe the matter has advanced to such precise quantifiability as that implied here. Regardless, acting on uncertain information and making due consideration for cost-benefit trade-offs are universal practical requirements in any empirical discipline.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @__ice9
The issue is that we want to know the answer to the question "does ivermectin help for COVID-19?". Currently, the evidence does not allow us to answer that question
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Every medical treatment has side-effects. The enthusiastic over-promotion of HCQ was based on almost identically terrible evidence, and we know how that turned out
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
I dispute that they are similar. HCQ repeatedly failed RCTs as monotherapy, all over the world, at any given stage of the disease. Ivermectin has produced entirely the opposite results.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @__ice9
Not at all. HCQ had a slew of awful observational evidence and a number of worthless positive RCTs at the start of the pandemic. This is actually precisely what you'd expect given publication bias and imprecise, poorly done research
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
I was not referring at all to observational studies. I clearly stated RCTs. Moreover, I wrote "as monotherapy." If you looked closely, you may have noticed that the only successful [H]CQ RCTs have been as an add-on to combination antiviral therapy.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
That is not correct. There were a number of small but terrible studies of HCQ as a monotherapy way back in April/May that were nevertheless "positive" in the same way as the ivermectin studies are
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
Cite such an RCT. You claim that an RCT for HCQ monotherapy initially reporting out in April or May found a positive result.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.