I dunno, haven’t looked but just the conclusion seems like a huge stretch: 2 doses resulting in a protective effect for a month?? And 83% efficacy for a month is shit: vaccines provide 95% for months.
@GidMK @K_Sheldrick did you guys look at the Indian study above by any chance?
-
-
Replying to @ydeigin @Matthew_Ives and
I read it and don't really understand many of the key parts of it to be honest, why was it ethical to run an interventional trial of an experimental drug but not ethical to randomise? There are also lots of things missing we'd expect to see in a trial like this.
4 replies 2 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @K_Sheldrick @ydeigin and
It’s not RCT. It didn’t test asymptomatic or “those who chose not to be tested”. How bad is that?
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @Stephengm99 @ydeigin and
It's definitely an issue (especially bias in the likely correlation between risk taking behaviour and participations), but the effect size is enormous and if the data are real hard to see it arise from those biases alone.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @K_Sheldrick @Stephengm99 and
I don't agree tbh - non-randomized trial with no blinding of outcome assessment (people chose to get a PCR test or not) and no real correction for exposure at baseline at all. Hard to know what the results mean, but they ~could~ be massively biased
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @Stephengm99 and
Look, I think that's a completely reasonable position too.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @K_Sheldrick @Stephengm99 and
I will say that the idea that it is unethical to run an RCT is bizarre to me. If you believe that ivermectin is effective, having a control group is unethical random or no. If you don't know whether it's effective, an RCT is ethical
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @K_Sheldrick and
Would you run an RCT to determine if cigarettes are harmful?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Abhishe32708703 @K_Sheldrick and
This is a prospectively registered trial conducted in September 2020. Even ~if~ you think that ivermectin has sufficiently good evidence to demonstrate efficacy on the level of cigarettes now (it doesn't), that certainly wasn't true in August 2020
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @K_Sheldrick and
The evidence in August did not have to be comparable to that of effects of cigarettes but rather sufficient enough to warrant use as a prophylactic amongst at risk HCW.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You brought up cigarettes. In August 2020 there was essentially no evidence at all that ivermectin was effective, especially considering the Surgisphere fraud which was the basis for treatment had just been withdrawn
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.