See, thing is, most of the studies that supported the idea that there is a large benefit for ivermectin appear to be either fraudulent or so poorly conducted that they might as well be fakepic.twitter.com/OQvRFR38tC
-
-
Show this thread
-
On the other hand, the only large, well conducted trials seem to find either no benefit or at best quite a modest one
Show this thread -
Indeed, if you remove just two trials from your analysis - Elgazzar and Niaee - there is not a single RCT that has found a benefit for mortality, and on aggregate the result is pretty solidly

Show this thread -
What then separates ivermectin from other repurposed drugs? Popularity?pic.twitter.com/aKSrYM3CfG
Show this thread -
Anyway, this doesn't mean that we should stop the ongoing large trials into ivermectin, but I do think it's an interesting point worth considering. Take away the fraud, rewind to the actual evidence, and what remains?
Show this thread -
What got me thinking about all of this is that we excluded lopinavir/ritonavir as a treatment based on not that much more null evidence than we now have for ivermectin. We need to finish the bigger trials, for many reasons, but still interesting
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is like a mix of availability bias and social proof.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Any thoughts on what the motivation for the fraud might be?
-
I'm not sure tbh
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
What do you think of Remdesivir . which is still recommended according to NIH guidelines?
-
Recovery study found no benefit ...
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.
