If ivermectin does turn out to have a modest benefit (and imo that's the most likely outcome) it will still have been WILD that so many have promoted it as a miracle cure based on woeful evidence
-
Show this thread
-
If the HCQ has shown nothing, it's the absolute nonsense of the argument "it probably isn't harmful and it might help, GIVE IT TO EVERYONE"
3 replies 7 retweets 90 likesShow this thread -
100s of millions took HCQ across the globe to treat Covid-19, and we now know that this may have actually killed quite a large number of people You can't base treatment decisions on hope and sunshine, because that way leads to serious harm
10 replies 28 retweets 181 likesShow this thread -
Hopefully ivermectin works. But if it does, it is not a victory for people who took atrociously bad research and waved it as a flag to promote their favorite medication
7 replies 8 retweets 141 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
Please state your data for this "large number of people"pic.twitter.com/ipKMJPEQEU
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Dan_Donovan_17
Sure. Based on the best evidence, HCQ increases the risk of death by a very modest amount in COVID-19. However, it's been taken by millions of people, so even a very small risk increase translates into large numbers of deathshttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22446-z …
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
It's a Meta-analysis, not RCT. Causation does not equal Correlationpic.twitter.com/J0XW7pnFBY
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
It is a meta-analysis of RCTs. This is specifically designed to assign a casual inference
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.