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 …
I'm not sure what you're talking about - both Kyle and I have critically evaluated and checked for fraud studies that do not support ivermectin. There just don't seem to be many critically low-quality studies that didn't find a benefit
-
-
There’s likely publication bias at play (which serves to weaken the case for IVM) if a study is both trash and doesn’t provide an interesting result it’s not getting published If it’s trash and provides an exciting result or good and provides a boring result it can get published
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.

