I think that is a very absolutist view. EBM is important. EBM purity spirals are harmful.https://twitter.com/__ice9/status/1328856819742232576?s=19 …
-
-
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 -
Replying to @GidMK
I dispute that insufficient evidence is available to assess the question.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @GidMK
There have been many RCTs of various levels of quality. I wrote at the very onset that it would be pointless to address only a single one. Here is a realtime summary: https://covid19criticalcare.com/flccc-ivermectin-summary/ … Here is a broader discussion paper, likewise updated to match: https://covid19criticalcare.com/flccc-ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-covid-19/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @__ice9
Well, I have actually had a read of the first of those and even from a brief skim it appears to mischaracterize observational evidence as RCTs and not adequately represent the state of the evidence
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
And I cannot see a single RCT that is of even reasonably good quality summarized there. Nor even a relatively strong observational study. Just the same kind of useless evidence that was so prevalent for HCQ earlier
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
ICON is a fairly strong observational study, as noted already. I am not sure why you are ignoring everything I respond with.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
I disagree. If you want to do a thread on possible shortcomings of ICON as an observational study, I will read it. I thought the data analysis was decent, subject to the limitations of the protocol at least. I would not put it on the same level as an RCT, but still favorable.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.