17/n How bizarre? Well, here are the measurements from the 'early' treatment studies - hospitalization is in the same model as % viral positivity, recovery time, symptoms, and death All in the same model WILDpic.twitter.com/LDzNRQ8JId
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
28/n ivmmeta includes all of the studies I've been tweeting about recently including this one https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1421368493975359490?s=20 … And this one https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1420582871031373824?s=20 … And this onehttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1419557546872819719?s=20 …
29/n I've now read through about 3/4 of all the studies on the website, and I would say at least 1/2 of them are so low-quality that the figures they report are basically meaningless
30/n Moreover, sometimes the website just does stuff that is wildly strange Here's a study with no placebo control. They appear to have calculated a relative risk of...whether the patients in this hospital got treated with ivermectin? WHYpic.twitter.com/qH9PRewSPS
31/n I could keep going - there's just so much there. Even just the basic concept of combining literally any number from any study and saying that it makes the model MORE ROBUST is so intrinsically flawed So. Many. Mistakes
32/n But this thread is already too long, so to sum up - the website looks flashy - the methodology is totally broken - I would call this pretty pseudoscientific; all the trappings of science, with none of the rigor
33/n If the authors do indeed want to make this into a reasonably adequate analysis, there are a few steps: 1. Separate treatment outcomes (i.e. analyze ONLY deaths in a model) 2. Rate QUALITY of included literature (i.e. don't aggregate trash with decent studies)
34/n 3. Separate STUDY TYPES (i.e. don't include an ecological trial with no control group and an RCT) 4. Take out all the weird language about "probabilities" and heterogeneity, pretty much all of that is just flatly incorrect
35/n Also, because people always ask when it comes to ivermectin - no, I've never been paid by any pharma companies for anything, I receive no pharma funding, and all of my COVID-19 work is unpaid anyway
36/n Frankly, I don't want your money, give it to something more worthwhile like this charity that provides menstrual products to homeless women they're much more deserving than I amhttps://www.sharethedignity.org.au/
37/n One final point - I honestly hope ivermectin works. Based on the current evidence, it looks like the benefit will be modest, but it's still not unlikely that it helps a bit. Problem is, current best evidence is also consistent with harm
38/n Ugh, one other note - one shitty website that makes mistakes does not "disprove" ivermectin, just like the website never proved much itself. The question is still open in my opinion, regardless of ivmmeta
39/n An addition - this was a very unfair thing to say about this piece of research, which is very well-done. The issue is not with these researchers, but the ivmmeta website itself and I should've been more clearhttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1422044424436011009?s=20 …
40/n A brief update - this was an unfair point to make - the trial does indeed have a control group (such as it is), just not a very useful onehttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1422049090007797766?s=20 …
41/n You can also see some more examples of where the authors of this pseudoscientific website contradict their own stated methodology in this brief thread from Dr. Sheldrickhttps://twitter.com/K_Sheldrick/status/1431507081496969222?s=20 …
42/n And worth noting that we've come forward with serious concerns about fraud for 4 studies that remain up in the main analysis on the website Not scientific at all, but, well, not unexpected!
43/n People keep directing me to this pseudoscientific website, so I might as well keep pointing out issues This study - Ahmed et al - found no benefit for ivermectin on duration of hospitalization, cough, or sore throat. So why is it presented as massively positive?pic.twitter.com/Xo9De14u0h
44/n Well, in the ivermectin groups (there were two of them), of those who had a fever at the start of the treatment in one group everyone recovered. In the placebo group, 3 people still had a fever at day 5pic.twitter.com/L28viBtMOY
45/n Now, obviously this contradicts ivm meta's stated methodology - they should use hospitalization length which is more severe than reported symptoms - but it's also quite funny because they've even excluded ONE OF THE IVERMECTIN GROUPS
46/n In reality, this trial should have a point estimate above 1, because in this trial people treated with ivermectin stayed (non-significantly) longer in hospital than the placebo group, but the website is only interested in promoting ivermectin, not factspic.twitter.com/bDBVOuq0KC
47/n You can even see just how dishonest this website is when looking at cough. It's debatable whether cough is more severe than fever, because there's no assessment in the paper, but the placebo group did better than ivermectin in this trial on cough (p=0.15)pic.twitter.com/0qfHZbtXKp
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.