c19early/ivmmeta etc. and all those sites/faux meta analyses are not really reliable for determining (or even hypothesising) efficacy; We don’t see such benefit

c19early/ivmmeta etc. and all those sites/faux meta analyses are not really reliable for determining (or even hypothesising) efficacy; We don’t see such benefit when looking at defined endpoint points in RCTs, rather than their weird synthesis of disparate cherry picked endpoints from ecological, cohort, case-control studies and RCTs. They mostly show low to very low quality/certainty evidence, as well as in vitro studies, observational studies, retrospective studies, non-randomised studies, and/or non-controlled studies. They even include studies that were negative. They also do not follow any methodological or report guidelines; i.e. not including protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment, certainly of evidence etc.