Something worth noting - no matter how you look at it, the research community has royally fucked up when it comes to ivermectin
-
Show this thread
-
Yes, there are endless terrible trials, but we've had 18 months. WE COULD'VE RUN GOOD TRIALS We didn't. That is woeful, and frankly inadequate
6 replies 8 retweets 137 likesShow this thread -
We spent endless billions researching hydroxychloroquine, and knew by August 2020 that it didn't work, but ivermectin which has been given to 100s OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE...still no answer. Shameful
7 replies 9 retweets 140 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
I would argue that we actually *do* know, with approximately as much certainty as we had a year ago for
#HydroxyChloroquine, that#Ivermectin almost certainly doesn’t work. Low prior probability + equivocal clinical trials = doesn’t work.9 replies 8 retweets 61 likes -
Replying to @gorskon
Sure, but we could've easily had a large trial really testing the idea by now. If we'd rolled it into RECOVERY or SOLIDARITY, it might've prevented (or caused) literally millions of people to get the drug
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
We're still arguing about awful, low-quality evidence, but as a global research community that is a choice. We could definitely have tested this properly by now, and we really dropped the ball
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
At some point isn't it unethical to try something you don't think will work just to shut people up?
5 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
That is my issue as well. But it is tricky. Ivermectin has a good safety in a reasonable treatment regime, this makes the testing less problematic. Plus there are some studies, mostly pretty poor but I guess it may be seen as giving it some plausibility.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Here's what made me rate the prior plausibility of
#ivermectin as a treatment for#COVID19 to be very low. The in vitro experiments that showed antiviral activity used concentrations several times what is achievable in the blood with normal dosing. That's a huge red flag.1 reply 11 retweets 34 likes -
That's why I keep saying about
#ivermectin: Low prior plausibility/probability + equivocal clinical trials = almost certainly doesn't work.1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
Let's crank it up to an extreme example to show you what I mean. Homeopathy has in essence, no prior plausibility from basic science; yet there are quite a few equivocal trials of homeopathy that seem to show a benefit, even meta-analyses that claim to find a benefit.
-
-
Do these equivocal clinical trials overcome the low prior plausibility of homeopathy? Of course not. No, I'm not saying the prior plausibility of
#ivermectin is homeopathy-level, but the same principle applies, just to a less extreme extent.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Yes, it's possible that
#ivermectin might have a therapeutic benefit vs.#COVID19, but, again, its low prior plausibility plus equivocal and low quality clinical trials *strongly* suggest that it probably does not.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
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.