6 ms·
> This is from ivmmeta.com, part of a sprawling empire of big professional-looking sites promoting unorthodox coronavirus treatments. I have no idea who runs it
by lolspace 5y ago
> This is from ivmmeta.com, part of a sprawling empire of big professional-looking sites promoting unorthodox coronavirus treatments. I have no idea who runs it - they’ve very reasonably kept their identity secret
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.
- WithinReason 5y agoThe problem is likely to be with the scientific approach of the studies included (they are not filtered) than the meta-analysis itself.
- shkkmo 5y agoThe 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.