In the thread it seems consensus that the pro-Ivermectin meta-analyses is of higher quality. On the other hand the contra-Ivermectin studies is seen as borderline malicious (among others they switched intervention and control number for one study)
Trusting the best meta-analyses on a topic is generally a good strategy and the one I’m using here.
It’s generally quite easy to dismiss evidence by saying “I have abstract standard XY for which I have no structured empiric evidence to justify it being an useful standard, the evidence you provide fails XY.”
To not rely to much on my own reading of the evidence, I opened a thread about discussing the quality of pro-and-contra meta-analyses on LessWrong: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/EAnLQLZeCreiFBHN8/how-do-the-ivermectin-meta-reviews-come-to-so-different
In the thread it seems consensus that the pro-Ivermectin meta-analyses is of higher quality. On the other hand the contra-Ivermectin studies is seen as borderline malicious (among others they switched intervention and control number for one study)
Trusting the best meta-analyses on a topic is generally a good strategy and the one I’m using here.
It’s generally quite easy to dismiss evidence by saying “I have abstract standard XY for which I have no structured empiric evidence to justify it being an useful standard, the evidence you provide fails XY.”