25/n This explains the bias I noted above - it's not publication bias, it's that the authors appear to have generally chosen whichever result makes ivermectin look better to include in their model Not really scientific, that!
-
-
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/
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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 …
Show this thread -
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 …
Show this thread -
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 …
Show this thread -
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!
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread
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.