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 -
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 -
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
-
That's just the same nonsense as in that weird map, but in a preprint. There's no actual measure of ivermectin use, data quality, etc, just an ecological comparison between some countries that do and don't have endemic parasites
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
It's amazing to me that U & comrades don't require the same level of scrutiny for the mRNA vaccines.U take the companies word for much of the science.Dr Byram Briddle foi'd the
@pfizer rat studies from Japan & was appaled to see how widely disseminated the vax was. But you're
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That's nonsensical and completely off-topic. I do indeed put exactly the same effort into reviewing vaccine studies, but we're talking about ivermectin here
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
However I see nothing about that on your home twitter page, but you have a pinned tweet denigrating Ivermectin.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I have a pinned tweet looking at a single study that appears to have been at least partially fraudulent
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.