I haven't had time to read it in extreme detail yet, but a quick skim seems to show that it is a fairly good piece of research that the authors have already improved in the 24 hours since it went online
-
-
Show this thread
-
Arguably the most important point of the study - the vast majority of evidence on ivermectin for COVID-19 appears to be of extremely poor quality even when you limit the results only to the best studiespic.twitter.com/EjfJJR0uo3
Show this thread -
I should say - it is yet another enormous, hideous black mark against our scientific nous during this pandemic that the evidence we have about a treatment that has been given to 100s of millions of people is "very low" quality Shameful, really
Show this thread -
Even if ivermectin is useless, we should have more than a handful of awful trials about it And we don't
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No doubt this review will be ignored by those who claim a big pharma cover up, but the fact remains that none of the available evidence shows clear benefit. And yet, due to political pressure, it still gets used...
-
Conveniently enough I imagine this wont show up on the totally "unbias" meta analysis website. They will stick with 100% improvement
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Great you just quoted a study that shows that it works (given that they mistakenly inversed data and they will have to publicly fix that mistake which will change the conclusion on the study)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Salam, please find the unroll here: An interesting new study - systematic review and meta-analysis for… https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1397819052333027330.html … Share this if you think it's interesting.
End of conversation
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.