3 ms·

>Ivermectin doesn’t reduce mortality in COVID a significant amount (let’s say d > 0.3) in the absence of comorbid parasites: 85-90% confidence That simply armc

by panny 5y ago

>Ivermectin doesn’t reduce mortality in COVID a significant amount (let’s say d > 0.3) in the absence of comorbid parasites: 85-90% confidence That simply armchair science blogging psychiatrist's hypothesis. He even admits as much, >But this theory feels right to me. It feels right to me because it’s the most troll-ish possible solution. Everybody was wrong! None of the studies looked at worms. It is correlation == causation logical fallacy to conclude this based only on speculation. If you want to start arguing with that approach there is no bottom as there are just as many correlation == causation counter examples like https://i0.wp.com/noqreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Ivermectin-Africa.jpg https://i0.wp.com/noqreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/I... You simply cannot dismiss that Ivermectin only works because worms until you have studies proving that. You can only say that it works, but you're not sure about why. Good to see that even after he cherry picked all the studies as hard as he could, he still had to reach this basic conclusion.

kaba0 5y ago
Nor you can assume any sort of effect on curing COVID without a fair and square trial. The default null hypothesis is that it doesn’t work, period.
- panny 5y ago
  As the blog post indicates, there is data proving a positive effect. That's not in question. The author is simply speculating why that is the case at this point, the specific reason for the positive effect.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    There is data with bad methodology on all fronts. The only thing they prove is the lack of knowledge of the scientific method of their writers.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > As the blog post indicates, there is data proving a positive effect. No, there is data that might point to a positive effect, that's something completely different than data that proves a positive effect. Note that this is exactly how these things happen, someone writes something with a particular audience in mind and then others will come along, cherry pick it, distort it and then pass it on as fact. You are step #1 of the Chinese Whispers game and it has already meaningfully changed.

by panny 5y ago

kaba0 5y ago

Nor you can assume any sort of effect on curing COVID without a fair and square trial. The default null hypothesis is that it doesn’t work, period.

panny 5y ago
As the blog post indicates, there is data proving a positive effect. That's not in question. The author is simply speculating why that is the case at this point, the specific reason for the positive effect.
- kaba0 5y ago
  There is data with bad methodology on all fronts. The only thing they prove is the lack of knowledge of the scientific method of their writers.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > As the blog post indicates, there is data proving a positive effect. No, there is data that might point to a positive effect, that's something completely different than data that proves a positive effect. Note that this is exactly how these things happen, someone writes something with a particular audience in mind and then others will come along, cherry pick it, distort it and then pass it on as fact. You are step #1 of the Chinese Whispers game and it has already meaningfully changed.