Gideon is being modest here: this is MASSIVE. A single RCT, which has caused 2 meta-analyses to show benefit of ivermectin, is almost certainly FRAUD. Remove that study, and both meta-analyses (Lawrie and Hill) show NO benefit. Astonishing story.https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1415764372362649601 …
-
-
Null hypothesis has an excellent chance of standing, unless some very compelling new data comes along.
-
I'm waiting for the bigger trials, but I think we can say quite comfortably that at this point in time the best-quality evidence does not support the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 outside of clinical trials
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's sufficient to dismiss a claim of, say, 50% reduction in adverse outcomes relative to the null hypothesis. However, it sits quite comfortably in the overlap between the null hypothesis and a claim of more modest benefit, say 20% reduction.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How does leave-one-out sensitivity analysis look here? I'd imagine it's shaky when the Rezai paper is omitted.
Thanks. 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.