35/n Also, because people always ask when it comes to ivermectin - no, I've never been paid by any pharma companies for anything, I receive no pharma funding, and all of my COVID-19 work is unpaid anyway
-
Show this thread
-
36/n Frankly, I don't want your money, give it to something more worthwhile like this charity that provides menstrual products to homeless women they're much more deserving than I amhttps://www.sharethedignity.org.au/
16 replies 16 retweets 266 likesShow this thread -
37/n One final point - I honestly hope ivermectin works. Based on the current evidence, it looks like the benefit will be modest, but it's still not unlikely that it helps a bit. Problem is, current best evidence is also consistent with harm
11 replies 11 retweets 147 likesShow this thread -
38/n Ugh, one other note - one shitty website that makes mistakes does not "disprove" ivermectin, just like the website never proved much itself. The question is still open in my opinion, regardless of ivmmeta
8 replies 8 retweets 130 likesShow this thread -
Health Nerd Retweeted Health Nerd
39/n An addition - this was a very unfair thing to say about this piece of research, which is very well-done. The issue is not with these researchers, but the ivmmeta website itself and I should've been more clearhttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1422044424436011009?s=20 …
Health Nerd added,
Health NerdVerified account @GidMK23/n Also, hilariously, this study used the last observation carried forward method to account for missing data in symptom reporting. You can actually see this in the supplementaries - it's possible the entire result comes from a few people not filling out their diaries properly pic.twitter.com/rA7PO4o4hdShow this thread18 replies 7 retweets 73 likesShow this thread -
Health Nerd Retweeted Health Nerd
40/n A brief update - this was an unfair point to make - the trial does indeed have a control group (such as it is), just not a very useful onehttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1422049090007797766?s=20 …
Health Nerd added,
Health NerdVerified account @GidMK30/n Moreover, sometimes the website just does stuff that is wildly strange Here's a study with no placebo control. They appear to have calculated a relative risk of...whether the patients in this hospital got treated with ivermectin? WHY pic.twitter.com/qH9PRewSPSShow this thread1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Health Nerd Retweeted Kyle Sheldrick
41/n You can also see some more examples of where the authors of this pseudoscientific website contradict their own stated methodology in this brief thread from Dr. Sheldrickhttps://twitter.com/K_Sheldrick/status/1431507081496969222?s=20 …
Health Nerd added,
Kyle Sheldrick @K_SheldrickReplying to @EduEngineer @GidMKOK, are we doing this? Let's do this. Let's go through the first set. The prophylaxis studies. Viral positivity is the least important outcome so presumably the five here should not report any symptom, hospitalisation or mortality outcomes, will there be an error in these 5? pic.twitter.com/0TxoZ7hS7H1 reply 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread -
42/n And worth noting that we've come forward with serious concerns about fraud for 4 studies that remain up in the main analysis on the website Not scientific at all, but, well, not unexpected!
6 replies 2 retweets 29 likesShow this thread -
43/n People keep directing me to this pseudoscientific website, so I might as well keep pointing out issues This study - Ahmed et al - found no benefit for ivermectin on duration of hospitalization, cough, or sore throat. So why is it presented as massively positive?pic.twitter.com/Xo9De14u0h
1 reply 3 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
44/n Well, in the ivermectin groups (there were two of them), of those who had a fever at the start of the treatment in one group everyone recovered. In the placebo group, 3 people still had a fever at day 5pic.twitter.com/L28viBtMOY
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likesShow this thread
45/n Now, obviously this contradicts ivm meta's stated methodology - they should use hospitalization length which is more severe than reported symptoms - but it's also quite funny because they've even excluded ONE OF THE IVERMECTIN GROUPS
-
-
46/n In reality, this trial should have a point estimate above 1, because in this trial people treated with ivermectin stayed (non-significantly) longer in hospital than the placebo group, but the website is only interested in promoting ivermectin, not factspic.twitter.com/bDBVOuq0KC
2 replies 3 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
47/n You can even see just how dishonest this website is when looking at cough. It's debatable whether cough is more severe than fever, because there's no assessment in the paper, but the placebo group did better than ivermectin in this trial on cough (p=0.15)pic.twitter.com/0qfHZbtXKp
5 replies 2 retweets 21 likesShow this thread
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.