You seem to think I'm criticizing the results. I am actually criticizing the fact that the protocol, as described, appears to be negligent.
-
-
Replying to @alexandrosM
Nonsense. It is clearly based on the best evidence - a study THAT USED THE SAME PROTOCOL found a 70% mortality benefit
2 replies 0 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
One more time, I believe, given the current state of knowledge, that giving people *only* 3 doses of IVM and nothing more, several days after symptom onset, is negligent. How does this relate to the Niaee trial?
1 reply 0 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @alexandrosM
Because they did the same thing, and it prevented 70% of mortality. Do you not think that results should replicate, or is your comment entirely meaningless?
1 reply 0 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
They didn't do the same thing, though. And they didn't know as much then.
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @alexandrosM
They did the same thing with regards to ivermectin. And knowledge has nothing to do with whether you believe results should replicate or not
2 replies 0 retweets 31 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
I am still not talking about the results. I am talking about whether it is an ethical study design to do what they did. I do not believe it is. Had they done more things, maybe it would have been, but they do not appear to have done so. As such, it looks, to me, negligent.
5 replies 0 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @alexandrosM
That's just meaningless. Either you think that the results should replicate - i.e. ivermectin should have a benefit even if it is 3 days etc - or you don't. If you discard Together for this reason, but not Niaee, then your objection is nonsense
3 replies 1 retweet 50 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @alexandrosM
*Negligent* is a moral judgement, but unless you honestly believe that there is a reason that ivermectin in the same doses/timings would show a benefit in one trial but not another, the results stand and your weird objections can be ignored
1 reply 0 retweets 33 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
My objection *is* moral. I really have no idea what discussion you are participating in. I am participating in a discussion about the things I have said about the Together trial. And if other trials did this little for late-stage patients, the same criticism applies.
2 replies 0 retweets 22 likes
Ah, ok then I understand. So moralizing aside, we're agreed that based on current best evidence there does not appear to be a mortality benefit for ivermectin for people with COVID-19
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @alexandrosM
I've seen this before -
@GidMK is having the meta-debate about Ivermectin and studies while@alexandrosM is trying to get the message across that Ivermectin works to help with the current pandemic. This is how it reads to me anyway.@GidMK would you take IVM if sick w/Cov?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @carvking @alexandrosM
No. I would enroll in our local clinical trial looking at various treatments, much better use of my time and more helpful for the world
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.