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
-
-
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
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
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 -
And the Dengue/HIV study, also pseudoscience?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That's just completely unrelated to the matter at hand
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
It is related. Dengue-HIV- Covid, all 3 are viruses & some would argue all 3 are lab derived viruses, so a drug that will treat 2 of them might also be expected to treat other viruses. Wild or lab.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That's just incorrect. Having some inhibitory action on completely different viruses is not the same as being a clinical treatment for COVID-19
-
-
Agreed. Also biological plausibility is great for hypothesis generating. Many new therapeutics start from bench top research. My career started in the lab in 1984. However, many more are never confirmed in high-quality in vivo trials demonstrating a patient-oriented outcome.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 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.