Worth noting that this paper cites several retracted pieces of research, at least one fraudulent, and has an entire section dedicated to the single worst ecological trial I've ever seen. Not useful as evidence!
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @bruce_y_lee and
Which one do you think is fraudulent?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JoanieOC @bruce_y_lee and
The Elgazzar paper has been retracted due to concerns about fraud. This has also caused the Hill et al meta-analysis to be retracted and it is currently being revised
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Here is the Hill et al SRMA that was retracted. It is still listed on the C19ivermectin site. Not sure if it is sill part of their summary info graphic.https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/10/ivermectin-meta-analysis-to-be-retracted-revised-say-authors/ …
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
I have spoken to Dr. Hill and their team is currently revising the conclusions entirely. The new MA will likely be quite similar in conclusion to Cochrane
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Thank you for sharing this additional information. A SRMA is only as good as the primary studies included. I've taught about GIGO many times (garbage-in, garbage-out). Each study needs to be critically evaluated for its validity. Using a standardized tool can help.pic.twitter.com/Evb0uloesa
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Definitely. I think it is unfortunate for Dr. Hill, because he and his team took pains to personally contact each author and confirm details about the trials. That they were conned is more about our reliance on trust in science than it is about their work
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
And our trust is being eroded daily, what with so many journals succumbing to corruption, as well as researchers, politicians & 'health' bureaucrats.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Your first and only citation used retracted, fraudulent research as a large part of its argument
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
There are 113 studies here. There was a problem with one of the studies which the author is challenging. The British Ivermectin group, headed by by Dr Tess Lawrie says even without the The Egyptian study, the results show an overwhelming positive result from the use of Ivermectin
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
113 studies is a meaningless statement if most of them are bad, and based on the Cochrane review and my own reading I'd say at least 105 of them are entirely worthless. The few that aren't terrible have mostly found no benefit for ivermectin
-
-
It's more convincing to see a few high-quality studies than a large number of low-quality studies. The Cochrane authors used explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria as per the PRISMA guidelines. I wonder what standard that IVM blog followed? http://www.prisma-statement.org
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
They just include any study and call it "positive" regardless of what the results found. Obvious pseudoscience
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
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.