I'm actually working my way slowly through every study on that website. There are just so many, and most of them are worthless garbage, and it all takes time
-
-
I mean, take this trial that I've just found. They report HUGE benefits for ivermectin/ribivarin/nitazoxanide, but it's not randomized and their control group was MUCH MUCH sicker than their interventionhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.26880 …
1 reply 4 retweets 21 likes -
1/3 of the "combined antiviral" group were asymptomatic, compared to just 4% of the control, and the O2 sats were substantially lower in the control at baseline. The study is also problematic in other ways, no one in their right mind would include this in a meta-analysis
2 replies 2 retweets 19 likes -
Are you going to make a blog about these papers, to give us an more extensive look at the problems you found with these studies?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Probably not, there's really not much point. These are terrible studies, no one with a shred of integrity would use them as evidence for anything
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
But you can bet Bird and FLCCC have no qualms about their inclusion
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @BerryTartlet @GidMK and
Can you take a look at this one, Gideon? You probably can find even more flaws than I did, as non-expert. "IVERMECTIN REPROPOSING FOR COVID-19 TREATMENT OUTPATIENTS IN MILD STAGE IN PRIMARY HEALTH CARE CENTERS" https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.29.21254554v1 … It's still a pre-print after months on 1/×
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DCSZ14 @BerryTartlet and
Medrxiv, so probably won't get through peer-review considering the flaws. The aim was to evaluate the use of ivermectin in outpatients in a mild phase to cure the progression of COVID-19 disease and / or to reverse the development of moderate or severe stages. with regard to 2/×
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DCSZ14 @BerryTartlet and
an outpatient clinic (of a treatment in a hospital that does not require admission). Flaw) No info on what the control group received. Flaw) No info what symptoms the EG and CG groups had, except a positive PCR test Flaw) No information on which comorbidities (if any) 3/×
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DCSZ14 @BerryTartlet and
the EC and CG group had And these are still the most eye-catching red flags indicating that there is little to this study. If you had given the EC group 1 apple 3 times a day, you could have claimed the same result: look, apples make you recover sooner! 4/4
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Can add that I've requested data from the authors and they've yet to respond. At this stage I'm considering any trial that doesn't provide data as high risk for fraud until they send it through
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.