RT @EARL_COVID19_tw: イベルメクチンが新型コロナウイルスに有効との結果を示したNiaeeらのRCTに疑義がかかり,生データ提出を求めたが執筆者が拒否.(Nat Med 2021, Sep22) https://t.co/Kx14EXaKRI ポジティブ結果…
@_RickConnor @DrEliDavid I'd advise you to stop trolling, contrarian conspiracist. Your unverified anecdotes, garbage websites like ivmmeta / c19ivm, etc. don't change reality of the published evidence on COVID-19 treatments. https://t.co/vanvDcjLmL http
@drtaubraun @boulware_dr Sorry, but what you wrote sounds like gibberish, mixing terms from neuromuscular physiology into immunology, misleading non-exerts. Dexamethasone, unlike IVM, worked before + after widespread vaccination. So no more excuses. http
@Lerianis1 @TigerlillySusan @PierreKory Your "numerous doctors" line fails in the face of numerous studies showing ivermectin doesn't work, to the point that medical organizations (which include "numerous doctors") recommend against its use. https://t.co/
@AlanSim34718124 @eckels_sam @AntonioSabatoJr Did you know that most of those studies which showed positive results were low-quality, misleading, and/or outright fraudulent? Including some that were bad enough to be retracted? Meanwhile, most high-qualit
@AntonioSabatoJr Did you know that a review of those studies showed that most of the positive studies were misleading, low-quality, and/or outright fraudulent? Some of which have since been retracted? Also, most high-quality studies show no effect? http
@EarthlingSK @TigerlillySusan @PierreKory And? At least they properly disclosed COIs, unlike Kory + other ivermectin promoters. The COI disclosures don't change the results, which are consistent with plenty of other studies on ivermectin not working. ht
@Claude__Cat @RemnantMd @jason_willz1 @JeromeAdamsMD They're probably grifting. https://t.co/173oqokGcO https://t.co/vsVuUQJUBo https://t.co/bof2dMV3VF
@DaveW22112081 @DonnaSlaybaugh @MidwesternDoc @JesslovesMJK FirstNameBunchOfNumbers, there are plenty of non-grifting doctors who do not make money off of deceiving patients about whether failed treatments like ivermectin work. Kory, unfortunately, is not
@AndyMLinn @_everythingism @themattdimitri Sensibly answer the published evidence on topics you made claims about, such as ivermectin + pathogen origins. And "sensibly answer" does not mean daft + baseless conspiracism about experts in those topics. http
@AndyMLinn @_everythingism @themattdimitri Re: "I said I accept the Ivermectin studies." Which again illustrates how you failed in your ideologically-motivated + paranoid objections to experts who knew more than you. They got ivermectin right. You didn't
@bamoore @Burkeshottian Tired of holding your hand on this, try doing some of the research you think you are so good at https://t.co/zFozdUBqdX
@GUstaoset @imnotfromthegov @VPrasadMDMPH @Sensible__Med Studies with “low risk of bias” find a null effect for IVM. Also, there is many studies that have been done since published in reputable journals—null effects for IVM on mortality. https://t.co/bU3S
@RDVSVNZLA @NinaForLiberty @Lifehealthcart1 @SpartaJustice It's a year-and-a-half-old meta analysis with poor sources. Its findings have not been confirmed by any followups. The bulk of evidence is that Ivermectin is useless against COVID. https://t.co/0t6
@Castdeath97 @weleesewodewick @egyptiankinghk @sid8998 They claim ivermectin works. Seems like a common thing for a lot of vaccine denialists. 🤦♂️ https://t.co/oka98L7oqN https://t.co/173oqokGcO https://t.co/bjMAXSRVfq
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @Katie_Spence_ @TigerlillySusan @handmadekathy @NicoleSirotek Ivermectin doesn't work, regardless of the disinformation…
@Katie_Spence_ @TigerlillySusan @handmadekathy @NicoleSirotek Ivermectin doesn't work, regardless of the disinformation website you cited. That's why it's use is recommended against. https://t.co/HMJAExExab https://t.co/173oqole2m https://t.co/1TA8sLCkO
@TigerlillySusan @Katie_Spence_ @handmadekathy @NicoleSirotek Maybe Spence doesn't know that site is from someone who published work exposing ivermectin fraud + has a series on ivermectin fraud? https://t.co/lragX6kpJd https://t.co/TOta2sHAI5 https://t.co
@fernandamdo 😑🫤¿No hay uno que no sea Meta-análisis? Esos estudios son más para plantear otras preguntas de investigación que conclusiones confiables... Simplemente hay que recordar lo que paso con la ivermectina: https://t.co/rxpB6CBdqh
@JeffBrackett8 Huh? It was never banned. Unless you only consume disinformation sources, you would know that there was no evidence for this being an effective treatment for covid-19. https://t.co/7eZxJMf3gt
@TheRealLoniHull @GidMK That nice, non-expert denialist. 🙂 I'll leave you to your own devices now since it's clear you're never going to be able to honestly + competently address the published evidence cited to you on this thread. Bye. https://t.co/rLkm
@jeffreyb4643 @TheDailyDigest @catturd2 I'm well ahead of you on this but maybe you'd want to check this out https://t.co/kuVXNd6oqr
@TheRealLoniHull @WanderLight2020 @hansel21_ @GidMK Telling how doctors who used ivermectin in clinical studies note that it didn't work in those studies. Clear evidence that it doesn't work. But you're a denialist, so evidence means nothing to you. 🤷♂️
@Squidpie111 @ShoelessBroJax @AlastairMcA30 @gorskon @mtaibbi It's based on expertise + cited evidence. Not my fault low-follower troll accounts lack both. 🤷♂️ https://t.co/173oqole2m
RT @JackMLawrence: I’ve been smiling all day but also at a loss for words. My first published academic article came out today and it’s in N…
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @Brkr_Morant @Adrian7745 Re: "Q: What's the difference between covid vaccination and ivermectin? A: One of them has be…
@Brkr_Morant @Adrian7745 Re: "Q: What's the difference between covid vaccination and ivermectin? A: One of them has been proven not to work" You really were, and continue to be, a lost cause. 😁 https://t.co/173oqokGcO https://t.co/1TA8sLCkOB https://t.
@TavernStyled @Covid19Ls @Brkr_Morant @MinorityView @mauveTriforce @KopkaGregor @WestsydeServer @thereal_truther @InCytometry @TrishtheDish_7 @LobotomizedM1 @snorman1776 @MAKEnotMIKE @GYamey @MaryanneDemasi No surprise that folks with low enough scientific
@inforiist @PeterAnderton10 @jonathanstea Here's a list: https://t.co/jLcrFijC7H The Iranian study is the best example: https://t.co/0ZDaEvG85Z
@__kateEbaby__ @AlastairMcA30 @Johnincarlisle A specialist medical publication would require writers to have deep knowledge of subject matter; general journalism applies analytical skills to break down information for non-expert readers. A different skills
RT @sudokuvariante: "We recommend that meta-analysts who study interventions for COVID-19 should request and personally review IPD in all c…
@ella489 @JackMLawrence @K_Sheldrick @GidMK @jamesheathers @Nature No, use of 'they' indicates more than 1 & is not common in English. Jack has a pinned tweet bragging about his authorship of that paper AND if YOU could read, you'd see he's listed as a
@GidMK And please explain why you include studies from which you don't have IPD data? https://t.co/n9fDgRXDyP
"We recommend that meta-analysts who study interventions for COVID-19 should request and personally review IPD in all cases" https://t.co/FarvDI6JKR How about researchers who ask others to apply strict rules they don't apply themselves?🤔 ➡️🤡
RT @carpe_diem0820: イベルメクチンからの教訓 要約データのみに基づくメタ解析は本質的に信頼性が低い 臨床研究は、要約統計の集合体ではなく、問題に対するより包括的データの貢献と見なすべき 匿名化された個々の患者データを提供できない研究はバイアスリスクが高い T…
RT @ymori117: nature medicine「イベルメクチンの教訓:要約データのみに基づいたメタ分析は本質的に信頼できない」 https://t.co/CpMYk9daMr イベルメクチンが有効だったと主張する臨床試験論文の個別データを精査したところ、次々と信頼で…
@PurebloodKc @jonathanstea The meta analyses used in this study have been criticized, such as using flawed studies, data that could not be possibly experimentally derived. Authors of one of the meta analyses is currently redoing the analysis. Really, you
RT @madfall1213: イベルメクチンの教訓 The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable | Nature Medicine…
@whenthelightsg4 @jason_willz1 Chart is based on risk of bias assessment, as per PRISMA. So you messed up again. When a study is retracted because its individual patient data shows patients being duplicated, then that's grounds for potential fraud. https
@425Noelle @Probius6 @ProudIdealist @TinaDesireeBerg @RWMaloneMD And you're lying. Not that I would needed to post this, because people interested in the subject should be familiar with this already. https://t.co/QtXNoV3QRt
Randomized double-blind clinical trials are the gold standard for establishing efficacy. The Ivermectin studies referenced for treating CV19 in above Epoch Times article fell short of that high standard 2/ https://t.co/o7EzSRBXeW
@JohnLow30031618 @aalders_n @mariajo03498910 @BuckDunn @Celtic_Harper @CollinRugg Here are some later studies. https://t.co/D9hzm9mkL4
@TheJikky @SabinehazanMD @arxivabs @Marik06491764 @fynn_fan @Jikkyleaks @US_FDA @K_Sheldrick @FlavioCadegiani @TogetherTrial It's a shame @NatureMedicine published this correspondance: https://t.co/FarvDI6JKR which contains unsubstantiated statements about
@DannyStouffer @m_c_k_e_e @hodgetwins https://t.co/CeLoVKPPF5 Not on COVID, unless you also have worms.
@jon77997 @DannyStouffer @m_c_k_e_e @hodgetwins https://t.co/Y8rpbo1kMb No effect. https://t.co/7DssxSsxUM No effect unless you also get worms. https://t.co/2JSgifii3M Highlighting the one pro ivermectin study was total dog💩 even the authors of it hav
@BluEvntHorizon @DrNeilStone Also a number of others https://t.co/1Zw5Zfd0di
@riznordin @PierreKory @K_Sheldrick You don’t need to conduct a trial to debunk it. The supposed study had huge statistical flaws that could not occur naturally, plagiarised text and a range of other problems. It was withdrawn because the authors were una
@C_Memo2020 @gtuckerkellogg @PierreKory Ivermectin doesn't work, as shown in study after study. https://t.co/pQ2sypff96 https://t.co/1TA8sLCkOB https://t.co/n5ZjbJfntL
RT @ymori117: nature medicine「イベルメクチンの教訓:要約データのみに基づいたメタ分析は本質的に信頼できない」 https://t.co/CpMYk9daMr イベルメクチンが有効だったと主張する臨床試験論文の個別データを精査したところ、次々と信頼で…
RT @madfall1213: The Real Scandal About Ivermectin イベルメクチン狂騒曲 Ivermectin Shows That Not All Science Is Worth Following The Atlantic https:/…
@TeresaW50369178 @DrJBhattacharya @emlitofnote Cool story, FirstNameBunchOfNumbers. Let me know when you're done pretending criticism is silencing, in your failed defense of ivermectin. 😉 https://t.co/pQ2sypfMYE "Time to Stop Using Ineffective Covid-19
@DrJBhattacharya @emlitofnote Tone trolling to avoid the point on ivermectin + fake claims of persecution peddled by those profiting from failed treatments. 🙄 https://t.co/pQ2syoXDKw https://t.co/ki8mAR4iCl https://t.co/P9emuPvSMS
@Alex_on_A14 @hartl73516271 @Brkr_Morant @mauveTriforce @thereal_truther @GYamey @InCytometry @MaryanneDemasi Anyone want to ask him whether ivermectin works for SARS-CoV-2? https://t.co/Pgl2Ukaq7N https://t.co/pQ2sypfMYE https://t.co/Q1fRhkspt5
@AndyMLinn @C_Kavanagh Re: "The lab leak issue admittingly changes my calculus on the efficacy of ivermectin w/o seeing any data (makes me think it’s more likely to be efficacious). [...] My view is IV probably has some efficacy" https://t.co/pQ2syoXDKw
@DomCorner3 @TravAlvord @MatA34814036 @Censored4sure Some contrarians/denialists are just so fundamentally paranoid, disingenuous, + ideologically-motivated that no amount of published evidence nor reasoning will ever get through to them. https://t.co/IOJ
@dr_handler @gtuckerkellogg @abhishek_s_1 @past_is_future @WashburneAlex The ivermectin example shows that you have a paranoid mindset when you encounter an evidence-based scientific consensus, instead of understanding the evidence. So it would be no surp
@AndyMLinn @davidemccune That's nice, pseudoskeptic. 😉 I'll instead go with published evidence from experts, especially given how poorly your other claims have turned out. https://t.co/oINg8S3kDQ https://t.co/xgPudubZdK https://t.co/pcpXH3PtgS https://t
@jason_willz1 @josbourgault Yup. https://t.co/pQ2syoXDKw "Ivermectin is not approved for use in COVID-19 in Australia or in other developed countries, and its use by the general public for COVID-19 is currently strongly discouraged" https://t.co/NK6JkYkh
@kirkwylde @rookierw @DrSusanOliver1 LOL, this intentionally manipulated meta-analysis (M-A) by Bryant & Lawrie. It contains one of the other fraudulent studies. This one by Elgazzar from Egypt, which the publisher also had to retract. Without that stu
RT @JackMLawrence: I’ve been smiling all day but also at a loss for words. My first published academic article came out today and it’s in N…
@The4ourthBranch @Alisonnj @ShutTheEye Re: "We've established that ivm/hcq «can» be effective in some cases." Nope. They're so clearly ineffective that they're recommended against. You just lack the ability to honestly admit when you're wrong. 🤷♂️ http
@The4ourthBranch @julianrad @AmymAisme You're upset that the authors of the source you abused understand the evidence pyramid + you as a non-expert conspiracist don't. HCQ + ivermectin failed in meta-analyses of RCTs. https://t.co/pQ2sypfMYE https://t.c
@The4ourthBranch @Alisonnj @ShutTheEye Well, that aged like milk. https://t.co/pQ2syoXDKw "Meta-analyses do not establish improved mortality with ivermectin use in COVID-19" https://t.co/CviHuLcbeb https://t.co/5lhHBw2Xzf https://t.co/ZbB75z9tXM https:
@The4ourthBranch @um_felipe @TaurenDruids @TomFitton For posterity: The non-expert paranoid conspiracist was peddling non-peer-reviewed cr*p for ideological reasons. https://t.co/pQ2sypfMYE https://t.co/sLyR0qQWdt https://t.co/9M8djQuvsa https://t.co/zb4
@tim_questioner @ovjocm @srut42 @CetiAlphaFumf @realRobPlumber @GidMK Re: "you seem to have "denialist" backwards. Popp and your team in general are denying that ivermectin is useful for C19." Someone doesn't know what "denialist" means, especially on wha
@ovjocm @srut42 @CetiAlphaFumf @realRobPlumber @GidMK If you still believe ivmmeta, then you need to improve your scientific meta-literacy + not fall for every crackpot blog that tells you contrarian tripe you want to hear. https://t.co/pQ2sypfMYE https:
@ninjatime85 The Elgazzar fraud is well known and widely publicized. It is likely the data were conjured from thin air. https://t.co/JCvCijRUes The Niaee study is less well known but just as bogus, with highly improbable randomization and stratification in
RT @madfall1213: イベルメクチンの教訓 The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable | Nature Medicine…
@d_e_mol @mirwijn @PvanHouwelingen @hapelensrob Als we papers gaan gooien, dat kan ik beter. En kijk vooral naar het Nature verhaal. Daarin wordt uitgelegd waarom niet alle meta's betrouwbaar zijn. https://t.co/woYLSolLaG https://t.co/X7H4sB6Ug4 https://t.
@JR4_Truth @jonathanstea @GidMK Why are you wasting folks' time with unsourced images, likely from the non-peer-reviewed disinformation blog ivmmeta? https://t.co/pQ2sypfMYE https://t.co/sLyR0qQWdt https://t.co/9M8djQuvsa https://t.co/zb4TidgoGz https://
@JR4_Truth @ggreenwald ^^^ Non-peer-reviewed disinformation blog. https://t.co/pQ2sypff96 https://t.co/sLyR0qQonV https://t.co/9M8djQtXCC https://t.co/zb4TidfQR1 https://t.co/ty49vjZitF https://t.co/BVQ9FRIATd