@SamiAntinniemi Ja sitten taas: https://t.co/XAWSM3RzHY
Relying on low-quality or questionable studies in the current global climate presents severe and immediate harms. https://t.co/jFvkaAuFMh
@Youknowwhothiis @WokeGoBroke @NOS https://t.co/76QtYaREX4 We kunnen best lang doorgaan met artikelen naar elkaar gooien denk ik
@SenRonJohnson @PierreKory #CORRUPTION 👉Our understanding of ivermectin, and early Covid-19 treatments more broadly, has been badly damaged by studies reporting results that did not really occur as described. https://t.co/7s66qycXJ0
@Oliverm05363868 @quiestce69 @nicolasberrod ecoutez des etudes il y en a beaucoup et notre metier c'est de classer selon leur importance et qualte https://t.co/mrb0DBDVC1 c'est un sujet complexe d'experts
@HGreisen @TigerlillySusan @RJGarnerAuthor Cherry-picking one trial doesn't change what's shown by meta-analyses of many trials. https://t.co/ytWNnaBBLg https://t.co/UMD60APd8R
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @thedadpresents @TigerlillySusan Re: "And what is the explanation for Japan and Uttar Pradesh in India?" Those are unc…
@EngelGert @erlangerfranke Richtig, denn das Problem mit Ivermectin ist das es nur sehr unzureichende Studien gab, was mittlerweile in mehreren Studien dazu aufgezeigt wurde: z.B. England: https://t.co/7WMtEeYETE Wuerzburg: https://t.co/Haa1KumpMO 1/2
@MetcalfTheGod @jeffh_van @BoggyZhed @WriteOnSoThere @adriandix Ooo a random study from Brazil! Is it one of the ones that was retracted? You can cherry pick studies all you like, but if you trust studies, then you will also trust the consensus among scien
La pandemia de los papers te sacan uno cada 2 minutos y ninguno tiene conflicto de intereses ,casi todo el mundo piensa que es inútil como tratamiento par Covid ,pero quien sabe si tien alguna propiedad que desconocemos?https://t.co/HlHxqfMNv6
@TigerlillySusan @vai_crypto @thedadpresents @GidMK Observational study who's design is worse than RCTs + meta-analyses low risk-of-bias RCTs. Even if it was non-fraudulent, there would likely still be residual factors (confounders) they didn't control fo
@Stokes47976392 @joelinho28 @chrismartenson Here's the peer reviewed one. https://t.co/1LL7GCHlsA
RT @K_Sheldrick: @PTetlock Agree about matter of degrees. Our argument wasn't that people should stop doing meta-analyses all together, bu…
@Followthescien3 @DumbDumbMM @GidMK Re: "It's a meta-analysis based on 15 studies" It's a garbage paper with an incompetent risk-of-bias assessment that let fraudulent work through. Not my fault you denialists keep citing it to get around better work ht
@friendok_ @TabarnakDan @jessicamalaty Right wing pseudoscience tactic: Cherry picking. But I bet you won't bother looking for the majority of reports like these https://t.co/Uiqfixc2ae https://t.co/xepuFUmDLF
@Followthescien3 @DumbDumbMM @GidMK Re: "but there is research suggesting" You don't know how to evaluate research with even a basic risk-of-bias assessment. And again, steroids are used in later treatment, not early. https://t.co/QiYCZ11Y9C https://t.c
@barbarab1974 Ma non diciamo cavolate..ecco che robaccia sono gli studi sulla ivermectina. https://t.co/h82V0NrR9y
@borghi_claudio Questi sono gli studi sulla ivermectina. https://t.co/h82V0NrR9y
RT @GidMK: The ivermectin literature is full of fraud What can we do about it? Our new paper in @NatureMedicine argues that we need a sy…
@jamesabernard “The authors of one recently published meta-analysis of ivermectin for COVID-193 have publicly stated that they will now reanalyze and republish their now-retracted meta-analysis and will no longer include either of the two papers just menti
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @thedadpresents @TigerlillySusan Re: "And what is the explanation for Japan and Uttar Pradesh in India?" Those are unc…
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @thedadpresents @TigerlillySusan Re: "And what is the explanation for Japan and Uttar Pradesh in India?" Those are unc…
@thedadpresents @TigerlillySusan Re: "And what is the explanation for Japan and Uttar Pradesh in India?" Those are uncontrolled comparisons riddled with confounders. So you they're worse than randomized controlled trials that account for confounders. htt
@palple @vienegiututto @antonioripa Lascia stare l’ivermectina, tutte baggianate di scienziati in malafede o per lo meno incompetenti nell’analisi dei dati. “evidence […] that has substantially evaporated under close scrutiny”. https://t.co/qxZp9TwWSs
@palple @Massi_Fantini84 @antonioripa Lascia stare l’ivermectina, tutte baggianate di scienziati in malafede o per lo meno incompetenti nell’analisi dei dati. “evidence […] that has substantially evaporated under close scrutiny”. https://t.co/qxZp9TwWSs
RT @IntDSchrodinger: @laura_lecuona @melissantropia Ahora... Si pretendes mostrar algún ensayo o meta-análisis del año pasado, tengo esto:…
@poetrypainter @joerogan Science is not religion. People can believe what they want, it doesn’t make it less bullshit. No need to read up, I already did as I work in the field: https://t.co/qxZp9TwWSs
@FamularoJoel @PuddleJumper358 @GidMK @mjtimber2 Seriously, stop trolling. You've been doing it bad faith for quite some time. https://t.co/ytWNnaBBLg https://t.co/UMD60APd8R https://t.co/NNXVPGBCna
@Ksukhia I don’t take anything g personally and whether im a good person or not is irrelevant to the efficacy if ivermectin. But here’s something to go off on: https://t.co/8qsbhX54RL
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…
@CaponeJbone @BobbyMiller202 @_Pete0_ @Pianokit @KarinMary1 Do any of you have the list of 26 studies this article is referring to? https://t.co/nR2VN3ADf1 And I believe this is the research they are citing: https://t.co/OKTipOJShg
@kreetalainen Tietenkin ivermektiiniä saa kaupoista. Olen sitä itsekin kuurin syönyt jokunen vuosi sitten. Sen sijaan mitään kunnollista näyttöä sen toimivuudesta ei ole. https://t.co/wqVYkel7FM
@citizen12141 To my understanding, there is limited data supporting the use of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 and of the limited data, it has significant methodological flaws. See the article below for discussion. https://t.co/2FdvXs8CnR
@paulofelipecwb @paulo_almirante @Rconstantino @Biakicis Falando em Pierry Kory e Metanalise com trabalhos duvidosos... https://t.co/IzP9JA4is5 https://t.co/t2m4jvPXY2
@GiGiDiVineCrime @SteveHofstetter I don't need to convince you. I am not convinced myself and I am not claiming anything. I am just saying that there is serious work being done regardless of stupid people taking horse doses by themselves. Science will tell
Most people know that clinical efficacy takes long to establish and that the evidence-based pyramid accommodates case reports and expert opinion as clinical evidence. I believe there is an antidepressant some are using to treat covid. Has there been clinic
@ERamugondo The flawed claims of clinical efficacy were based on studies that weren’t peer reviewed. https://t.co/C1uOQM5u4P https://t.co/uG5L6MBRRH There’s more but the big picture is: overblown claims based on flawed studies including some that are ou
@foo_4_thought @KarinMary1 There's also this. https://t.co/BAgfbAQ40i
@JonInTn1 https://t.co/3FMGsvYuYY https://t.co/OI4WujvISi https://t.co/2auSBI7gBa Btw, c19ivermectin is flagged as being a malicious site 😂😂😂
@lizardking7112 @BretWeinstein A meta-analysis of bad data isn’t going to give you good data, I think that’s the primary criticism with these ivermectin studies. See article from Nature (a science publication not a news outlet): https://t.co/tHCI6OE4BQ
@AllanKatz4 @AlastairMcA30 @profnfenton Stop being disingenuous. https://t.co/UMD60APd8R
@Richard80024379 @verylucky_guy @Bonniecarolcas1 @RMConservative One of the authors of this study has done a 5 part article in the medium on each of the articles that are now excluded. The Elgazzar one, was found to have duplicated patient data to make it
@DaveMueller4147 @GaryPoor @Sumsi_11 https://t.co/79ef6nyz8J Ihr wägt Opinion-Letters gegen peer-reviewde Metastudien auf. Warum?
@__Feonix except a closer look at these studies almost always reveals that they're junk it doesn't matter if you have 100,000 studies if they're all garbage https://t.co/vXFq4ycItC
@solvealltheprob @Science23156734 @JohnsonvilleBr9 @JustinWise @jordanbpeterson Speaking of, ivermectin data claiming it worked against COVID were faked https://t.co/ws7chfrlBy It doesn't work.
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…
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…
@illythekid1 @dieser_jessi @OHartwig @c_drosten Offenbar hast du den Artikel der BBC nicht gelesen. Es gibt keine valide Studie, die Wirkung nachweist. Sogar Meta-Studien wurden wieder zurückgezogen. Der Vorwurf der absichtlichen Fälschung steht sogar im R
@buzek22 @RadekPlek @pollert11 LOL antiagregancia a kortikosteroidy se pouzivaji od zacatku jako podpurna lecba pro prevenci, zadny lek na covid to neni, naopak clanek neprimo miri na pouziti ivm, pro nez dukazy o ucinnosti nejsou a hlavni metaanalyzy byl
@kuc_mill @buzek22 @RadekPlek @pollert11 to nevypovida o nicem, prilis maly vzorek, naopak pani se odvolava na metastudie ktere byly mezitim stazeny, zadny dukaz o ucinnosti ivm neexistuje https://t.co/e2z8fmj1i0
La désinformation toujours aussi active .... pour votre information : https://t.co/AhkV4RCLE9 cc @nathanpsmad
@Prince_Marcel @DanielBayley80 @only1nrs This study is only a preprint, which hasn't been peer-reviewed. 🤦🏼♀️ And ivermectin meta-analysis is unreliable as I've previously shown. 👉 https://t.co/p7eqigoFzu Even Merck said there is no scientific basis for a
@TomS82794181 @Octavius266701 @PN57155 @jeratep @bougis94 @boulmedarat @C_HHansen @CorinneReverbel Mouai pas du tout convaincu. Ce serait super mais non, l'ivermectine est un excellent anti parasitaire mais cela semble s'arrêter là. 🔽🔽🔽 https://t.co/uu2TNn
@estadolivre @Luciandrade @MCPSILVEIRA @schmittpaula Estudo cheio de problemas. https://t.co/xUyF7Laqg5
@Rconstantino Parabéns. As fake news de vcs estão revolucionando e aperfeiçoando o método científico https://t.co/mPjqQXmXgu
@shahmiruk https://t.co/OesiyvHnno "Several other studies that claim a clinical benefit for ivermectin are similarly fraught, and contain impossible numbers in their results, unexplainable mismatches between trial registry updates and published patient dem
@JB_Hilterman @RickJG21 @EddoRats @patricksavalle @attjekuiken @PvdA Leuk zoon screenshot. https://t.co/22EdX5wPW2
@DeeMoore1040 @Covid19Critical Yeah, that’s why real science realise on randomised, double blin experiments. https://t.co/s1uPiGYOPM
@PlagueRat0 @BannisterThink @CeCe67362007 @RepWeinstein Authors of a flawed study now withdrawn haven’t responded: The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable. https://t.co/XfveYDRnej https://t.co/Nz2zj7G
@J_man_79 @nmwhite04 @BretWeinstein @MartyMakary I know you're not going to read this because if you still think ivermectin is useful against covid 19 it means you don't read sources outside of social media influencers. I understand why, it's complicated a
@Guido_Smeets @Johnny_Stoeten @PDagori @attjekuiken Is niet cherry picken. Verre van. Zij kijken alleen naar studies die geen onderliggende problemen hebben in de opzet of data. Die Lawrie staat als een kaartenhuis. https://t.co/CRbpFXBY0C
@ambrefrmar @Fabulous_911 @Ploof_Plouf @DocAmine_ @legrugru Merci pour le lien il est intéressant et semble montrer une efficacité. Cependant en creusant un peu je suis tombé sur un article qui parle de tous les soucis éthiques qui entourent certains étude
@rendesignnut https://t.co/KWFQeel8JG gave you multiple links don’t be angry because you’re wrong. But by all means be mad and block still doesn’t make you correct I have you multiple links debunking your bs. I bet you didn’t even get tested for Covid and
@rendesignnut @EddieMedero @grahamwalker @drsimonegold Why do people always try to put the stereotype of the “mad black woman” on to me when I’m simply correcting them just because I’m correcting you and saying that you are being ignorant and negligent doe
@rendesignnut Want more sources? Here are more sources https://t.co/Qu0RWQXPKB https://t.co/unuAGGULNi https://t.co/duX7uYfGBf https://t.co/smrj8WEbDs https://t.co/4jEYptSavt
@clpakline @Algargath @duchdu1 @MatthieuGariel @RemiTell Je vous explique pourquoi il n’y a pas consensus, et je pourrais aller plus loin. Prenez-le temps de passer à la loupe vos preuves svp. J’ai le sentiment que vous faites du cherry picking pour cherch