I mean, financial interests are quite clearly not trying to suppress ivermectin research, given that there are now some really large trials of the drug being performed and out. And people regularly accuse me of being a paid shill, so it's a useful lie to address
-
-
"there are now some really large trials of the drug being performed and out." The real question is: are these trials designed to succeed or to fail?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
You design trials to test a question - succeed or fail is a rhetorical position, not a scientific one
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Disagree. You design a trial based on what you already know about the question. When you think a medication could have an antiviral activity (I don't speak here specifically about IVM) and test it, you don't recrute late stage patients, unless your goal is to fail.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If the claim is "ivermectin can be used to treat mild/moderate COVID-19 patients" which is the claim made by many (FLCCC, BIRD, etc etc etc) then you can test that claim without aiming to fail
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
There are plenty of reasons a trial can fail, we all know it. Underpowered, weak protocol, bad posology, bad choice of outcome, bad choice of population being tested, etc, etc, etc...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
These are reasons that a trial can answer the wrong question - that is not 'failing'. That being said, the Together trial answered the question "does ivermectin reduce the risk of hospitalization/death if given to outpatients with mild disease?" quite admirably
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
I haven't seen the publication, where can I find it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Thus far there are only slides presented, I believe the preprint should be out this week. Protocol is online in several places i.e.https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2779044 …
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
So, this is a "quite admirable" study, of which you have thus far seen only slides? Let's leave it at that, that whole discussion is an episode of the Monthy Python's Flying Circus, only less funny.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
The hilarious thing is a group of ivermectin promoters who believe that a rolling study with public protocol and published results for 3 drugs already is totally worthless because the preprint isn't out yet. Obviously I'm still keen to see the actual study
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @GabinJean3 and
The other hilarious thing is that it's simultaneously called bad because of other nonsense like not giving the drug early enough. It's Schroedinger's denialism - the study both exists to criticise and doesn't at the same time!
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. 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.