Lol, that's just shifting the goalposts to a completely different conversation. You brought up Peru 
-
-
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 -
Replying to @jjchamie @EdoajoEric
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
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
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
Agreed - there's still a plausible modest benefit and the question about prophylaxis remains unanswered. I will say that I am less optimistic for pre/post exposure based on the trials of treatment
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.