The difficulty with this approach is you end up destroying the literature. There's always some new standard that /could/ have been applied once the trial gives a result you don't like. BIRD/FLCCC et al never reject "positive" trials with similar designs.https://twitter.com/BIRDGroupUK/status/1425880281618190337 …
-
-
if it had an effect the size they're hyping, we absolutely would have seen it in the trial, it would not be hard to detect
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Gideon, did you raise methodological objections to the Ivermectin trials you critiqued before the results came out?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Didn't the author already update the protocol once several months ago based on feedback from other? Seems like he was pretty willing to entertain legitimate objections.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Come on. I've seen so many similar criticisms of the Oxford IVM protocol, before the trials started, and it's not like they changed anything. There were probably criticisms of the TOGETHER trial, too.
- 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.

