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
-
Show this thread
-
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
5 replies 9 retweets 86 likesShow 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
6 replies 1 retweet 74 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
Could you take a look at this d.blind, randomized study as well?https://medrxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2021.05.31.21258081v1 …
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Nadav_Eyal
Bad signs right off the bat - you cannot have 21.6% or 16.8% of 89. 19/88 is .216, and 15/89 is .169, so these are probably minor issues, but it's still not idealpic.twitter.com/2Hn82wnR6P
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @Nadav_Eyal
Per-protocol analysis where the authors excluded double as many people in the placebo group as in the intervention. Also not idealpic.twitter.com/u0JbXg5md5
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @Nadav_Eyal
From table 1 of the results - these are mistakes. 69/89 = 77.5%, 36/47 = 76.6%pic.twitter.com/F1RIo8vAHH
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The odds ratios reported in the study confuse me. I can't be sure without the source data and code, but this looks like the adjusted OR of NOT having a negative PCR test, rather than HAVING a negative PCR testpic.twitter.com/Fid8iGkM2B
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.