Ivermectin is yet another example in a long line of claimed miracle cures for COVID-19 that we simply don't have much good evidence for or against In other words, we really don't know if it works or nothttps://gidmk.medium.com/does-ivermectin-work-for-covid-19-1166126c364a …
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
It is the height of Western scientific elitism to say we still don't know when it is being used effectively in large parts of the world... simply because it doesn't meet your self-declared evidentiary standards. I hope you soon realise how ridiculous you look
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wombat_holes
The only 3 high quality trials (which had null findings) on ivermectin were conducted in LMICs so I'm really not sure what you're talking about here
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
How convenient that the only three studies you consider to be 'high quality' are those with null findings.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wombat_holes
Actually, this is based on the reviewer gradings from the systematic review by Bryant et al using Cochrane guidelines. Technically the term is "low risk of bias" but people usually find that confusing
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
See, you are doing it again. You know there are more studies than those in the meta-review, which could only be published if it included the approved metric of RCT only. Observational studies are still evidence, real world data is still evidence. You know this, so why the act?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
We're talking about studies with a low risk of bias here. Unfortunately, I'm a bit busy today so no time to go over in detail with you on Twitter, but if you're interested in what that means check out the Cochrane handbook it's very useful
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.