2/n The paper is here, and mostly it's just a perspective piece in a minor Nature offshoot (Journal of Antibiotics, IF 2.4) written by two members of what I can only describe as a pro-ivermectin advocacy grouphttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5#Sec11 …
-
-
Show this thread
-
3/n The advocacy group is called Front Line COVID Critical Care Alliance, and has a very flashy website that basically advocates for ivermectin (and vitamin D, melatonin, and mouthwash) as the cure of all COVID illspic.twitter.com/zfl62MAtFn
Show this thread -
4/n Now, this might be something of a red flag for publication in a scientific journal, but this affiliation isn't mentioned in the paper or the conflicts of interest which is a bit oddpic.twitter.com/TDmG9qf3Lg
Show this thread -
5/n The review itself is mostly fairly boring - it is a reiteration of the same lab-bench data that was used initially as a reason to trial ivermectin, although the language is quite strange at times ("unsuspecting victims" is, uh, quirky)pic.twitter.com/tGQheUNY2c
Show this thread -
6/n But some parts of the piece are simply wild. For example, instead of citing the Cochrane, BMJ, or other recent systematic reviews, the authors cite ivmmeta dot com, an anonymous website that is far from scientificpic.twitter.com/Eg4ZDdsahR
Show this thread -
7/n Indeed, the authors have copied the information in this paragraph directly from this shoddy website, leading to this wonderful sentence making its way into a published scientific paperpic.twitter.com/U4NIgERNOw
Show this thread -
8/n Complete misinterpretations of p-values aside, the website is one of many really bizarre anonymous efforts to push ivermectin and other unproven medications for COVID-19
Show this thread -
9/n More rigorous reviews have pointed out that virtually all published studies on ivermectin are of extremely low quality, but you wouldn't know that from the summary presented on ivmmeta dot com!pic.twitter.com/d0Ma4NoPMA
Show this thread -
10/n In fact, one of my favourite parts is where a WHO investigation that concluded that ivermectin should not be given outside of a clinical trial as the evidence is so woeful is misrepresented as showing that ivermectin is massively beneficial!pic.twitter.com/MARkZRcsR5
Show this thread -
11/n (As a side note, the odds ratio is apparently presented because the WHO didn't "provide the details required to calculate the RR". That's weird, because the WHO did in fact calculate an RR in the report)pic.twitter.com/LPqkYmwn6A
Show this thread -
12/n Anyway, this website is what I would call solidly pseudoscientific - mimicking science closely enough to trap the unwary, but so filled with errors that the evidence is largely worthless
Show this thread -
13/n Even funnier than all this, perhaps, is the conclusion of the paper, because despite this all being used online as proof that ivermectin works perfectly that's not even what the authors saypic.twitter.com/ZvTLgeoOYM
Show this thread -
14/n I mean, "repurposing of approved drugs such as ivermectin" has been the focus of most of our attention since March 2020, it's not like we needed that push
Show this thread -
15/n Anyway, it is very odd that this paper was published as is, it has at least a few pretty bizarre red flags, but that hasn't stopped it reaching an Altmetric of 4,500 Yay, science!
Show this thread
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.