20/n For example, the analysis includes this paper. The primary outcome was viral load, which was identical between groups Never fear however, because ivmmeta won't take "null findings" as an answer!pic.twitter.com/xW0WmYGaV9
Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him
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
Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.
| Country | Code | For customers of |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 40404 | (any) |
| Canada | 21212 | (any) |
| United Kingdom | 86444 | Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2 |
| Brazil | 40404 | Nextel, TIM |
| Haiti | 40404 | Digicel, Voila |
| Ireland | 51210 | Vodafone, O2 |
| India | 53000 | Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance |
| Indonesia | 89887 | AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata |
| Italy | 4880804 | Wind |
| 3424486444 | Vodafone | |
| » See SMS short codes for other countries | ||
This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.
Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
20/n For example, the analysis includes this paper. The primary outcome was viral load, which was identical between groups Never fear however, because ivmmeta won't take "null findings" as an answer!pic.twitter.com/xW0WmYGaV9
21/n If you dig through the supplementaries, what you find is that for "all reported symptoms" there was a large but statistically insignificant difference, represented in this graph of marginal predicted probabilities from a logistic model. It is mostly driven by an/hyposmiapic.twitter.com/h64IdG4LJF
22/n If you eyeball "any symptoms", you get the results that ivmmeta included in their analysis But that's TOTALLY ARBITRARY. Why not choose cough (where there's no difference) or fever (where IVM did WORSE)
23/n Also, hilariously, this study used the last observation carried forward method to account for missing data in symptom reporting. You can actually see this in the supplementaries - it's possible the entire result comes from a few people not filling out their diaries properlypic.twitter.com/rA7PO4o4hd
24/n None of this should matter, because the trial found NO BENEFIT FOR IVERMECTIN, but this has been reported and included into ivmmeta dot com as a hugely beneficial resultpic.twitter.com/mjGBDnpVW5
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!
26/n But the fun doesn't stop there. The inclusion criteria for this website is any study published on ivermectin, which has led to what I can only call total junk science being lumped in with decent studies
27/n Here's a study with impossible percentages in table 1 that used a comparator of 12 completely random patients as their control. They don't even say if these 12 people had COVID-19 Included in ivmmeta, no questions askedpic.twitter.com/3AlGdGcPnW
Ypu think they're impossible why exactly? One percentage 48.15% was rounded up and the other 51.85% was rounded down so they add up to 100%.
There are many possible explanations for the error, and certainly bad rounding is one of them. But it's also true to say that these percentages cannot be correct, and that is not a great sign for a scientific paper
The fact that the pre-registration reports contradictory percentages (that are not impossible) is also problematicpic.twitter.com/0swAtRPcn8
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.