3 ms·
I would also read ivmmeta's response [0] and his reply [1] . At first I walked away fairly confident at what I had read. Later when I came across the responses
by disruptalot 5y ago
I would also read ivmmeta's response [0] and his reply [1] .
At first I walked away fairly confident at what I had read. Later when I came across the responses, things got more uncertain. The example which quickly comes to mind is that most if not all the prophylaxis studies were not reviewed in Scott's analysis.
[0] https://ivmmeta.com/#sa https://ivmmeta.com/#sa
[1] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/higlights-from-the-comments-on-ivermectin https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/higlights-from-the-com...
- rsfern 5y agoThe Covid therapeutic and prophylactic literature has been chock full of crap studies, so you really have to be careful taking meta analysis at face value. Some interesting discussion on this, which includes the prophylactic literature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y
- dionian 5y agoSame issue with relying on single studies, you might rely on a crap one.