I'm not sure how you infer from this that the ivermectin group was favoured by the difference in severity of the disease. If anything I would say it's the other way around, I would expect moderate disease to be most contagious. Seems far fetched this would explain results.
-
-
Replying to @GabinJean3 @jslocum1coxnet1 and
That's not true, but it's also not the point. Issues in randomisation are problematic, and this is just one of many problems
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @GabinJean3 and
I mean, the blinding such as it was clearly failed. They appear to have almost exclusively tested people in the control group. They then included people who tested NEGATIVE in their primary outcome. They have numeric errors in the paper. It's not one problem, it's endless
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @jslocum1coxnet1 and
The study was never blinded. I'm looking forward to your analysis on those points you raised. My general appreciation of your work is that you raise methodological doubts but are never really able to explain the results. Fraud is not a word to be lightly thrown around. Careful.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GabinJean3 @jslocum1coxnet1 and
The point about low-quality research is that the results such as they are become less trustworthy. Issues such as these could of course explain the results. And I know, I'm using it carefully and specifically although not about Shouman
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @jslocum1coxnet1 and
The difference in results are usually much more easily explained by differences in dosing or delay in intervention. Reproducibility trumps methodological flaws. Some "higher quality" studies that show no benefit have very serious design flaws which I haven't seen you rant about.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GabinJean3 @GidMK and
Like the lack of control for self-directed use in regions where use is endemic or the use of the drug on an empty stomach, in Together and Lopez-Medina or anemic doses in a few others.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GabinJean3 @jslocum1coxnet1 and
It's bizarre how people raise these issues about negative trials but never point out the exact same study design features about Niaee (which used lower doses compared to Together in an endemic use region) or any of the other positive trials
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @jslocum1coxnet1 and
Niaee used a combination of drugs on a less lethal variant without endemic IVM use and not on an empty stomach.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GabinJean3 @jslocum1coxnet1 and
They didn't report food intake before dosing, used a significantly lower dose of ivm, and the other drugs were equivalent across groups. The lethality of the variant would make no difference in a properly done RCT
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Like, look, these issues probably wouldn't make any difference anyway - they're nonsensical explanations that don't really make sense - but they also apply equally to a lot of positive ivermectin trials so it's bizarre that people only mention them for the null ones
-
-
-
Replying to @GabinJean3 @jslocum1coxnet1 and
Thanks, but it's not really nuance? People who've been promoting ivermectin for the better part of a year are always going to raise objections about null trials, the point is to consider whether those objections actually make sense
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.