Everyone wants to see it, so here we go: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.05.21249310v1 … Some quibbles with the methodology, but the actual data is numerically consistent as far as I can tell
-
-
Show this thread
-
This is not a new study, it's just the ongoing drag of going over ivermectin studies looking for numeric inconsistencies in the data. This is literally the first one I've found where I can't find anything at all
Show this thread -
This study also is not definitive, and frankly proves nothing. The numbers are too small - it's just one of many! Don't take it as proof!
Show this thread -
The fact that this is the first RCT I've managed to find on ivermectin that doesn't have obvious numeric errors doesn't mean it's perfect, it just tells you how awful the literature is as a whole
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Can you link?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I missed this. What did the results show?
-
Fewer deaths in treatment group than in control.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Have you read this peer reviewed study from the Lancet?https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00239-X/fulltext …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wow almost 10% of those who did not receive treatment died whereas 100% of those who received ivermectin survived. And this was with a tiny dose for two days not adjusted for weight of patients.
-
I would avoid reading too far into an isolated positive secondary outcome that doesn’t make sense in context of other study finding (no increased icu adm in placebo, no improved sx or time to dc in ivermectin) in a very small single-center trial.
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.