Because it’s political. Some people are invested in Ivermectin being effective, other people are invested in it not being effective. The extant studies are all inconclusive due to a small N, and mostly have problems with their methodology; if you pick and choose your studies in the right way you can get whatever result you want.
And the individual studies are often extremely bad. I note Cadegiani et al, who claim that Ivermectin (and also Hydroxychloroquine, and also Nitazoxanide) are each so effective, either individually or combined (they didn’t bother to track which patients got which drugs) that it is unethical to use a placebo group in studying those drugs. I’m not sure how Elsevier can be affiliated with a journal that publishes material like that and retain any credibility.
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?
Because it’s political. Some people are invested in Ivermectin being effective, other people are invested in it not being effective. The extant studies are all inconclusive due to a small N, and mostly have problems with their methodology; if you pick and choose your studies in the right way you can get whatever result you want.
And the individual studies are often extremely bad. I note Cadegiani et al, who claim that Ivermectin (and also Hydroxychloroquine, and also Nitazoxanide) are each so effective, either individually or combined (they didn’t bother to track which patients got which drugs) that it is unethical to use a placebo group in studying those drugs. I’m not sure how Elsevier can be affiliated with a journal that publishes material like that and retain any credibility.
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.