That's just a simple attempt to reverse the burden of proof. You say this proves that ivermectin shows a benefit, and I'm saying that argument is not well-supported
-
-
This is a big leap, from "ivermectin has no benefit for Covid-19 after all" to "I'm saying that argument is not well-supported"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Lol, that's just shifting the goalposts to a completely different conversation. You brought up Peru
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
We do have different goals. Yours seem to be purely academic Do you think arguing about methodologies to discredit a life saving treatment is ethical? Do you really believe ivermectin doesn't work?
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @jjchamie @EdoajoEric
Those are some bizarre leading questions
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @EdoajoEric
Do you really believe ivermectin doesn't work? It sounds like you do.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jjchamie @EdoajoEric
I think the evidence to date is now fairly good that ivermectin is unlikely to have a large benefit in the treatment of covid. Small benefits are still plausible, and the prophylaxis question is still open, but small harms are also plausible given the evidence
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @EdoajoEric
I greatly disagree, and also believe you'll change your mind soon. Just keep an eye on Mexico. They test and treat with IVM. The testing (and consequent treatment) is insufficient (positivity ~45%) but still is something. You'll see a big difference against US soon.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jjchamie @EdoajoEric
At this point, that sort of ecological evidence isn't very convincing. There are lots of biases and differences between Mexico and the US, which is the entire point of running clinical trials in the first place
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @EdoajoEric
This discussions always end in the same place: Only a big RCT is valid evidence.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
There are different kinds of evidence - ecological studies are extremely useful for answering certain questions. But in general, if the question can be asked in a way that can be answered by a clinical trial, it is a more robust form of evidence
-
-
The N=800 double blinded trial in spain that enrolled within 120 hours of sx onset concluded in June. We'll see. Lack of benefit in together trial indicates the anti-inflammatory properties were likely overestimated. And the pre/post exposure ppx question remains unanswered.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
I think Juan did some fantastic work but the conclusions we draw from that work have to be commensurate with the type of evidence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
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.