Never let it be said that I'm always negative - today's ivermectin trial was really excellent. It was so refreshing to read an RCT where I could not find a single error in the data
-
-
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 -
-
-
What a low bar to pass. But here we are, where passing it is literally remarkable
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But the number by arms are not consistant at the beginning of the result section of the abstract and at the end ?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why was a patient on the ivermectin arm excluded from analysis for being given ivermectin?pic.twitter.com/UFgBrMhqvn
-
The hospital team who were not part of the trial gave that patient ivermectin I think, and according to the protocol that was an exclusion criterion
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
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.