Re:Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know
by WithinReason on Wednesday November 17, 2021 @04:32AM
(#29250761)
The problem is likely to be with the scientific approach of the studies included (they are not filtered) than the meta-analysis itself.
Re:Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know
by shkkmo on Wednesday November 17, 2021 @10:44AM
(#29254565)
The article points out several ways that ivmmeta's meta-analysis may be flawed:
> Meyerowitz-Katz accuses ivmmeta of cherry-picking what statistic to use for their forest plot. That is, if a study measures ten outcomes, they sometimes take the most pro-ivermectin outcome.
> (how come I’m finding a bunch of things on the edge of significance, but the original ivmmeta site found a lot of extremely significant things? Because they combined ratios, such that “one death in placebo, zero in ivermectin” looked like a nigh-infinite benefit for ivermectin, whereas I’m combining raw numbers.
Given that there is a lot of complexity and debate on how to integrate studies with disparate primary outcomesbane measures, the fault may indeed lie with the ivmmeta analysis methodology.
Why are they hiding their identity? That means that it can be anyone who does this.
-----------------
But even more important. The website also claims that each of the following individual medicines works:
Fluvoxamine
Proxalutamide
Iota-carrageenan
Molnupiravir
Quercetin
Povidone-Iodine
Curcumim
Casirivimab
Sotrovimab
Bamlanivimab
Nitazoxanide
Budesonide
Zinc
Bromhexine
Colchicine
Vitamin D
Aspirin
Favipiravir
Hydroxychloroquine
Remdesivir
Vitamin C
I find it unlikely that all those claims are true which in turn makes me question their scientific approach.