2/n The semi-anonymous site claims to be a "real-time meta analysis" of all published studies on ivermectin, collating an impressive 60 pieces of research It's flashy, well-designed, and at face value appears very legitimate
-
Show this thread
-
3/n The benefits that this website show for ivermectin are pretty amazing - 96%(!) lower mortality based on 10,797 patients worth of data is quite astonishing. Sounds like we should all be using ivermectin! Except, well, these numbers are totally meaninglesspic.twitter.com/B0rrocOEpS
7 replies 41 retweets 429 likesShow this thread -
4/n Digging into the site, you're immediately hit with this error. That's not how p-values work at all, any stats textbook will show you why this statement is entirely untruepic.twitter.com/Hzb4K1NYaH
17 replies 49 retweets 555 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
Hi, Health Nerd. I'm a statistican and textbook author. I computed the p-value and found the exact answer here. There is nothing about the statement I can see that is incorrect. A p-value is the result of the computation testing to see if a result could occur by random chance.
3 replies 7 retweets 69 likes -
Replying to @EduEngineer @GidMK
Perhaps you're reading in a meaning the author meant to express but didn't. e.g. perhaps they meant to say "a hypothetical ineffective treatment would generate" rather than "an ineffective treatment generated"
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @K_Sheldrick @EduEngineer
It's also worth noting that in the context of this meta-analytic model the p-value is entirely the result of the cherry-picking of "positive" values, so the chance of having a low p-value is 100% regardless of whether ivm works or not
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @EduEngineer
Yeah I mean a quick 5 minute skim will tell you these weren't extracted on the basis of severity.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @K_Sheldrick @GidMK
What does "extracted on the basis of severity" mean?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EduEngineer @GidMK
The author (authors?) of the MA claim to have extracted the most serious reported outcome each time rather than cherry picking an outcome which gives a result they like.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @K_Sheldrick @GidMK
This is just a matter of two different interpretations of words. The usual interpretation of "most serious outcome" is "endpoint level", not "which AE we find most terrible". We'd need QALYs for the latter, anyhow.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
The pseudo-scientific analysis certainly doesn't choose the clinical endpoint pre-specified by the authors of these studies in most cases so I'm not sure what you mean
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.