Why are we not surprised? Not that it will make any difference - the IVM promoters will just squeal about cover-ups and fake news and so on...https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1424836896190984216 …
-
-
Replying to @AFranzsen
At this point it's virtually impossible to establish a bridge between the two armed camps, and the reason is that there is no trust at all between them. It's a complicated situation, with bad actors on both sides (albeit far more and far worse on the pro-IVM) /1
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NeilTStacey @AFranzsen
I don't think that I even have to get into a critique of the pro-IVM camp because it's a mess of contrarianism and outright fraud. Anyone advocating self-medication with IVM is misguided and/or dishonest, as are those calling for its wise rollout as prophylactic. However.../2
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NeilTStacey @AFranzsen
It is people sitting on the other side of the issue who have created a receptive environment for the strident proponents of IVM. It's convenient and easy to proclaim "IVM does nothing!" and it certainly garners applause, and so people do it /3
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NeilTStacey @AFranzsen
It is not, however, well-supported by data. The vast majority of IVM studies have small reductions in adverse outcomes in the experimental groups. A small minority had massive reductions, but it appears that those are fraudulent. /4
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NeilTStacey @AFranzsen
When
@GidMK redid the numbers on the Hill meta-analysis, removing the strongest pro-IVM studies, there was still a Relative Risk of something like 0.8, which is entirely consistent with a small benefit. /52 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NeilTStacey @AFranzsen
The confidence interval ran from 0.6 to 1.29, so it's similarly consistent with a large benefit and large harm as well
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @AFranzsen
I ask you two favours and one question. The first favour is to read the entire thread. The second is to keep the definition of cherry-picking in mind for the question, which is "did you apply the same scrutiny to the most negative findings as to the most positive?"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think it's a worthwhile point - the uncertainty runs in both directions. And yes, thus far I've yet to find an obvious fraud or even extremely low-quality study with null findings. Quite remarkable actually
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.
