Re: "What do you think about ivermectin in COVID-19?" Forgot to give my answer from the choices in the poll: Unsafe & Ineffective https://t.co/Yf0GHzyQv7 https://t.co/mDCt9G9vyn https://t.co/pkgoVo35uY https://t.co/QuyuK7yPF4
@TheCryptonaut2 More letters, immediately accepted to @Nature. No fuss. No credentials. Just accepted, within 2 weeks of submission. @profnfenton @fynn_fan https://t.co/vmxHyOv7M2
RT @GidMK: @dr4liberty @gorskon @GYamey @reason Or our review of the ivermectin fraud and malfeasance, published recently in Nature Medicin…
RT @GidMK: @dr4liberty @gorskon @GYamey @reason Or our review of the ivermectin fraud and malfeasance, published recently in Nature Medicin…
@HurdleBoss @SpaceTurtleArt @PeterHotez In other words, they duplicated patients to pretend they had more patients than they actually had. That's simply fraud, not an honest mistake. from @GidMK: https://t.co/rECpxejoAO https://t.co/lragX6jRTF https://
RT @AtomsksSanakan: 7/S There was not only studies at higher risk of bias, but also fraud. Removing those studies, meta-analyses of rando…
RT @AtomsksSanakan: 7/S There was not only studies at higher risk of bias, but also fraud. Removing those studies, meta-analyses of rando…
RT @AtomsksSanakan: 7/S There was not only studies at higher risk of bias, but also fraud. Removing those studies, meta-analyses of rando…
RT @AtomsksSanakan: 7/S There was not only studies at higher risk of bias, but also fraud. Removing those studies, meta-analyses of rando…
7/S There was not only studies at higher risk of bias, but also fraud. Removing those studies, meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) do not show ivermectin works. Singer leaves that out. https://t.co/MoLGLLIJbc https://t.co/pkgoVnLuDq h
@dr4liberty @gorskon @GYamey @reason Or our review of the ivermectin fraud and malfeasance, published recently in Nature Medicine https://t.co/nwHMCqc4lt
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @r_y_a_n__t @tnicholsmd And the study does nothing to change the fact that ivermectin produces results consistent with…
@LegitHendo @nytimes One study isn't "tHe DaTa". Have you stopped to wonder why most studies backing ivermectin end up being retracted? https://t.co/t9pwu8P6zI You still haven't shown me this Pfizer study or how it's all a lie.
@AviBittMD @agnostosphere @drgomulka @sudokuvariante There simply is no way to get through to these sorts of people. They're just ideologically-motivated denialists saying whatever they need to to suit their pre-determined conclusion in favor of ivermectin
@sophialolaxx1 @El_KikitX @monteynard @ClaireJardin1 Ivermectine sur le COVID = 0. Juste du perlimpinpin pour neuneus. https://t.co/CydxKfYM3N https://t.co/1Gd572yA0w
RT @madfall1213: The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable | Nature Medicine https://t.…
RT @madfall1213: イベルメクチン、 誤った科学が生んだ新型ウイルス「特効薬」 BBCニュース 2021.10.9 https://t.co/nmm37MaerZ イベルメクチンの教訓 The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses…
RT @madfall1213: Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid miracle drug BBC News 2021.10.7 https://t.co/mjKRVYCU4W イベルメクチンの教訓 The lesso…
@_RL_W @GidMK @jeremyfaust Nope. Look at the credible interval. The results here are the sort of results you'd get if you used water as a COVID-19 treatment instead of ivermectin. https://t.co/pkgoVnLuDq
@BrianEdwardMKE @gorskon Re: "Ivermectin & Fluvoxamine don’t work, but masks totally DO work. lololol. Lololol" https://t.co/n8W5yItPo6 https://t.co/sZtrSokv5k https://t.co/pkgoVnLuDq https://t.co/eXkXdgTkyc
@BrianEdwardMKE @picphysicians Your tone trolling and sealioning are noted. I don't particularly care about your negative tone. It is interesting, however, how you engage in incorrect, ideologically-motivated trolling on topics you clearly don't grasp. h
@r_y_a_n__t @tnicholsmd Your attempt to move the goalposts is noted, and discarded. 🙂 Again: https://t.co/pkgoVnLuDq https://t.co/My0jVtlHXJ
@r_y_a_n__t @tnicholsmd And the study does nothing to change the fact that ivermectin produces results consistent with a drug that does not work for SARS-CoV-2, unlike vaccines, dexamethasone, etc. https://t.co/sZtrSokv5k https://t.co/cBbvpvnGGO [https:
@pondera_fm @AtomsksSanakan @AesBrah @Johnincarlisle And compounded this unjustified snobbery about credentials by pointing the viewers to an anonymous so-called meta-analysis of IVM literature. He clearly didn't care about checking the credentials of IVM
@4U2CY @WalterB57598554 @MJ34Hig44 @PeterHotez @Acosta @WSJ "Actually fact checking" requires actual facts, not videos about quacks quacking at each other. https://t.co/VzKLOBwP7Y https://t.co/ZE6R17jhOr
@garymac777 @JRD0000 This might help you understand the silliness of those meta studies based on the fabricated data. Yes, ivermectin is safe. No, it doesn't treat Covid. https://t.co/Py2rnmK9ly
@dutchsoulbr @huisdoktertim @aboutanurse Deze werd retracted 👇 https://t.co/x91xCw3rkk
@anuschka_ann @chantal_kopf @Tini68274439 Ohne Worte! Ivermectin? https://t.co/X4vJ4OKf0m Du hast keine Ahnung von Medizin, davon aber richtig viel! https://t.co/XKrXUhypTZ
@LaborLibsSuk @tigertuffmark Lol no. https://t.co/CDK1HfYLeW You need to get off those weird conspiracy webpages and go outside.
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…
@justkiddin1981 @mholkers @CollakuGentian @waukema @WHO @TwitterSafety 😂😂🤡😂😂 Niet gelezen, niet begrepen. Lees dit eens https://t.co/pgzehqBPWS Wanneer heb jij voor het laatst Ivermectine voorgeschreven? Ik in 1999 in kliniek AzG Nigeria bij behandeling
@obobinde @777Antoine777 @idrissaberkane Encore les méta analyses 🙄 https://t.co/G6RPn3y8k5
@Odd_Pupil @mariannaspring @sajidjavid As published in one of the most prestigious journals, the evidence base on Ivermectin "evaporates" under close scrutiny. https://t.co/zBpvRlNCwq
@PGTryhard @johnnylawdog @nncyhllrd @mizdefiant Do you know what "meta-analysis" means? Because that's what you sent me and many of the studies that was used for the meta-analysis were found to be fraudulent. https://t.co/1LL7GCHlsA
@KathyConWom Most of that data has been discredited: https://t.co/p9oH7oGcKt
@ecozdence 5 milyar insanda yapılan aşıya çamur atanlar, toplam 1000 hastada bile kullanılmamış bi hayvan paraziti ilacına balıklama atlıyorlar. Hem de yayınlanan çalışmaları son derece güvenilmez. Bazıları da geri çekilmiş. Tam bir akıl tutulması... http
@toeter74 @sjakie46390779 @ItsmeLa92432949 @anneliesfries @ongehoordnedtv @claudiadebreij Ivermectine zijn twijfelachtig natuurlijk https://t.co/Y9GNnXgSpE Hydroxychlorocine ook: https://t.co/vZw1hXBwgB Goede voeding/afweerondersteuning (bijv vitC of D) h
@gmeeus2 Re: "Meanwhil I-TECH wzas published, and guess what…" It produced results consistent with a drug that does not work. I suggest you not lie about what the paper says, denialist, like you lie about AGW to suit your agenda. https://t.co/cfVLRQnJxp
@HHippiie @ProgresivePatrt Most of those studies have been retracted, faulty, or misunderstood. "A lot of doctors" = "a very small minority". Also, in regards to the infamous meta-analysis that all you guys rely on: https://t.co/p2EAERYclr
RT @madfall1213: Ivermectin Didn’t Save Japan From Covid-19 by @GidMK https://t.co/UQWv248RUR イベルメクチンの教訓 The lesson of ivermectin: meta-an…
@JohanMeijboom Nee. Je hebt je iets wijs laten maken over Ivermectine. De onderzoeken zijn eigenlijk allemaal frauduleus. Een vaccin is een preventief middel. Er wordt hard gewerkt aan een medicijn. Vind je het zelf problematisch dat je zo weinig weet o
@ShiraGeva @TomerSimon איברמקטין לא עוזרת לשום דבר חוץ מלתולעים במעיים. באמת, אני לא מבין את האובססיה הזו של קהילה שלמה באינטרנט לתרופה שהיא פשוט רנדומלית לגמרי. ממליץ לקרוא את הסיכום הזה מ-nature. סגרים באמת קשים ולמדנו איך לעשות אותם הרבה יותר טוב. htt
@ramrod_rj @membrane55 @VeutifulConnor @AnaCabrera You’re using a study already called out for randomization errors a year ago. Have you kept track of the meta analyses? https://t.co/AHndKV6RKw
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @GidMK So non-expert ivermectin fans use dosing, etc. to whine about well-done trials, but not about fraudulent ones h…
@GidMK So non-expert ivermectin fans use dosing, etc. to whine about well-done trials, but not about fraudulent ones https://t.co/rHugBC8ySG https://t.co/wbFX4257Fi https://t.co/hagRbf4yed https://t.co/SjTloS3hgu https://t.co/Xp4O6XqRPH https://t.co/a2nQ
@David32856757 “Relying on low-quality or questionable studies in the current global climate presents severe and immediate harms.” https://t.co/Vlx3aA1kGk Get out of that negative disinfo “feedback loop” David 🤦🏻♂️ It will get you killed 🤦🏻♂️
@PaulSaxMD @boulware_dr It's a bit confusing since the original paper was retracted, with an update that corrected many issues: https://t.co/0DQvlFKl7G [https://t.co/UMD60APd8R] It looks like that version has been removed as well: https://t.co/e610EWzqB
@jamesbleekerPL @TheBillNeedle @EpictetusPhD @Kevin_McKernan @AHS_media @MartinKulldorff @DrJBhattacharya @SunetraGupta @PierreKory @P_McCulloughMD Any without Elgazaar in them? 🙄 https://t.co/SVJICQagi6
@StoptheHypocri2 @Ahick16 @tuxlemons Here’s a couple of examples why meta analysis shouldn’t be used in the way you’re using. https://t.co/OWJG0MBuzY https://t.co/bxj4wXCXYA There have been some studies to show efficacy, many have been retracted or wer
La EOC se debe a la publicacion del paper de @GidMK @sTeamTraen etc sobre el fraude del estudio egipcio https://t.co/hNdLpOS2Bp https://t.co/9pPlBaQ4TG
This letter was in response to another correspondence in @NatureMedicine describing the ivermectin story in #COVID19 Important findings from them and they documented well how fraudulent research had found its way into meta-analysis https://t.co/2cv6sDa
RT @hctrdz: @KChandlerTurner @marybsheridan 1. Your reference only proves correlation, not causality. It's based on statistical analysis of…
@Jesus_is_G_d @graphicgirl215 It stings when you don't check your facts. https://t.co/T5rOJdavUo
RT @hctrdz: @KChandlerTurner @marybsheridan 1. Your reference only proves correlation, not causality. It's based on statistical analysis of…
@KChandlerTurner @marybsheridan 1. Your reference only proves correlation, not causality. It's based on statistical analysis of summary data and that is unreliable. https://t.co/AESxViR5nl 2. Mexican officers gave the drug to 200k citizens and used their
And the journal Nature followed up by exposing the fraud. And instead of news sources using this expose to humiliate Ivermectin touters, the media follwed them down the vortex of misinfo. https://t.co/YOTPeRISrI
@cooltxchick #Ivermectin isn’t quite “horse paste”. It’s an anti-parasitic with veterinary, but is mostly used in humans. It’s also used in malaria treatment and has *potential* anti-viral properties. You’re correct that it IS NOT effective in treating #CO
@DrSPrendiville @hnh1957 @AllMattNYT Neither of those are in Science magazine; neither of them are about SARS 2003; neither of them are in vivo. Here's the problem - the studies that show it works are poorly conducted and won't release their data. Good st
@GCSCS_RuG @karin_metz @HrothN Ever considered the possibility the study is rejected on scientific grounds? It happens.. https://t.co/o2ptm6WJmk
@jcsutton69 @garrr_scallywag @SHurrell1 @sean_purdy @PierreKory @GidMK You're welcome. I'm happy to keep posting evidence debunking your disinformation on ivermectin + ivmmeta. https://t.co/UMD60APd8R https://t.co/wymdjtd0ot https://t.co/UBGSzA0bHA
@4bustersmom @moneybackguaran @fa110ftr0y @AndrewYang No mortality benefit from ivermectin is the latest meta analysis of the research: https://t.co/Q6msEBo5Zw. Why take an experimental medicine when the vax is proven effective?
@germanhorus @GoldsteinBlum Den Ansatz generell zu verfolgen ist erlaubt, aber es ist halt erwiesenermaßen unwirksam: Quelle 1: https://t.co/bF6Me07B93 Quelle 2: https://t.co/LcGAnsaRD3 Quelle 4: https://t.co/fRqouRvzKY Quelle 5: https://t.co/q1cdmgmGYI Qu
@Lindweb64 Not really, no evidence of benefit and most of the supportive papers have been pulled due to questionable data. I’d take anything that could be showed to work, it’s just this hasn’t. https://t.co/rAmw4pmKkH
@MercuryMachina @jordanbpeterson Opsy… the numbers don’t match. Lol https://t.co/xlC7XXhkdk
@ATL_BUM123 @craiggyk @ariehkovler Benefit from ivermectin with covid** Also, this: https://t.co/YiFY4YOdYs
@inthepitts @theblaze Level of certainty of evidence in these studies is low. Methodologies vary from study to study, including comparator, dosing, blinding, etc. 🍎≠🍊 As this Nature Medicine article points out, summary data is not sufficient input for m
@hansjepansje Yep. Veel mensen vragen om bewijs, hier de publicatie in Nature waarin wordt uitgelegd dat de paar studies die wel effect van #ivermectine laten zien frauduleus zijn: https://t.co/XQ7KrQO7pN
@Daniell31025186 @___Pikachu___ @RealCandaceO That was DEBUNKED months ago Danielle. The "meta-analysis" pulled data from WEAK STUDIES. Sorry!! https://t.co/KMeyw9oaCa
@UnintendedMax @TomFitton "Recently, we described flaws in one RCT of ivermectin, the results of which represented more than 10% of the overall effect in at least 2 major meta-analyses. We described several irregularities...not...consistent w them being ex
@denzel_olde @rudybouma - Aanvankelijk leken de ivermectine onderzoeken hoopvol, maar het gros van de positieve studies bleek verzonnen. Diverse publicaties zijn ingetrokken. Zie ook https://t.co/MyMWIMG3R5 2/
@AJL037 @StevenC26390401 @GarrrettHarmon @Fuckin_Mahar @morganisawizard This paper has been discredited. https://t.co/T0H0ySomoW
@LoverOfTruth6 @CrankyThegn @craiggyk @MaryanneDemasi I did… the second link is a study that, well, here says it better (since other places retracted it the meta-analysis): https://t.co/ytYyEDW99D
@truebluej @banker88NY @Adam_Creighton @joerogan @RemindMe_OfThis To suggest 'all' is simply false. With an emphasis on simple. https://t.co/hFcrgqRBwm
@BravoHotel77 @LozzaFox "The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable | Nature Medicine" https://t.co/9oG3Yzlgip
@sonia_elijah @LozzaFox @doctor_oxford I'm sorry @sonia_elijah but the studies you're talking about has flaws including randomization failures and authors of a meta analysis have admitted this. I'm more than happy to explain this to you and so are many emi
RT @dense_evi: @sonia_elijah @LozzaFox @doctor_oxford That's untrue. I believe there are only 2 RCTs supportive of IVM, one retracted due…
@AlexDunn17 @TGAgovau That analysis is deeply flawed. Based on several studies that are either retracted or deeply problematic. Scientific method. https://t.co/9EzbQu74oJ
RT @dense_evi: @sonia_elijah @LozzaFox @doctor_oxford That's untrue. I believe there are only 2 RCTs supportive of IVM, one retracted due…
@iskarjarek @EnnRrrGee @guardian The authors of one recently published meta-analysis of ivermectin for COVID-19 have publicly stated that they will now reanalyze and republish their now-retracted meta-analysis and will no longer include either of the two p
@sonia_elijah @LozzaFox @doctor_oxford That's untrue. I believe there are only 2 RCTs supportive of IVM, one retracted due to clearly fake data (Elgazzar et al), the other with serious questions raised that the authors have failed to respond to Once exc
@DrMay5 Assuming @GidMK and colleagues reference it here: https://t.co/pTRqJDUsv2
@drumz3606 @MGt5150 @RealPNavarro @DineshDSouza @CC @JohnBerman @CNN Also, there is great concern that many of these meta analyses and the studies that underlie them are flawed and even fraudulent. https://t.co/reBwGTFJhW
@siemmert @trevormacinnis @gluefactory @SeivwrightTrudy Here's a peer review on 26 Ivermectin stuidies. https://t.co/1LL7GCHlsA
RT @EricTopol: More holes in the Ivermectin story: multiple studies that "contain impossible numbers in their results", the 2 most positive…
@Rafage5 @QOrigins By the way, if your use of scientists and researches is not biased or selective, I suggest you read this study: https://t.co/RNySUH6Giq