Pretending that just because something is political you can believe whatever you want is hugely problematic.
if you pick and choose your studies in the right way you can get whatever result you want.
It’s interesting to what malpractice the contra-ivermectin study engages. Not withdrawing it from publication after they mistated the results of a key study (and not giving it to any peer-reviewer competent enough to notice the error) seems to me a lot more ethically problematic as allowing a low quality study to be published where all empiric claims seem to be true.
Neither of the meta-analyses includes this. Given that you think it’s one of the studies that you think is problematic this demostrates that the pro-Ivermectin studies didn’t just cite any available low quality study.
How do you think you should updates upon learning that the pro-Ivermectin study didn’t chose studies to maximize the ivermectin effect?
Pretending that just because something is political you can believe whatever you want is hugely problematic.
It’s interesting to what malpractice the contra-ivermectin study engages. Not withdrawing it from publication after they mistated the results of a key study (and not giving it to any peer-reviewer competent enough to notice the error) seems to me a lot more ethically problematic as allowing a low quality study to be published where all empiric claims seem to be true.
Neither of the meta-analyses includes this. Given that you think it’s one of the studies that you think is problematic this demostrates that the pro-Ivermectin studies didn’t just cite any available low quality study.
How do you think you should updates upon learning that the pro-Ivermectin study didn’t chose studies to maximize the ivermectin effect?
My longer-form thoughts are at Substack.