Today I decided to look at some of the terrible observational studies on ivermectin that I've mostly ignored, and wow So far, one with Cohen's d of 2, another with d of 2.9 These are just...gibberish
-
-
Shouldn't have to, the publishing apparatus is broken. Garbage in garbage out. Incentives are wrong ofc.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
at this point I think that it's no longer just about ivermectin. There's an ongoing process that is destroying public confidence in scientific publications.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It boggles the mind that it falls to people like you to check them. What the fuck is the point of journals anyway?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Almost nobody shares observational. The last one that was popularly shared was the one published in CHEST. Then It was mainly about RCT and mechanism of actions.
-
And the largest from Mexico, because it was huge.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Why are there so many fraudulent Ivermectin studies? I know fraud sometimes happens. But this seems like an extraordinary amount.
-
Vein. Hopeful thinking. Disinformation. Don‘t forget: Vitamin C and D is usually „in the mix“ too. Details:https://www.businessinsider.com/why-ivermectin-being-used-treat-covid-2-doctors-leading-charge-2021-9?amp&__twitter_impression=true …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I kind of feel that these poorly uncontrolled drug trials from no-name institutions should be thought of like VAERS: good for looking for a signal to test, but not for answering questions about it, and likely to be misused by ideologues.
-
** poorly controlled
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.