Fun fact: Trump's doctor being an osteopath in any country but the U.S. would be super weird quackery but because osteopathy is weirdly integrated into medicine in the states it's pretty much normal there
Even more interesting is the history of osteopathy in the US, which started as pure quackery and then slowly drifted towards legitimacy over 150 years
Since there are still people misunderstanding, the entire point of the original tweet is that it is NOT weird in the US for the President to have a DO as their physician because they do mostly the same training as doctors in the states
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The final large published trial on ivermectin for COVID-19, PRINCIPLE, is now out. Main findings:
1. Clinically unimportant (~1-2day reduction) in time to resolution of symptoms. 2. No benefit for hospitalization/death.
Now, you may be asking "why does anyone care at all any more about ivermectin for COVID?" to which I would respond "yes"
We already knew pretty much everything this study shows. That being said, always good to have more data!
The study is here:
For me, the main finding is pretty simple - ivermectin didn't impact the likelihood of people going to hospital or dying from COVID-19. This has now been shown in every high-quality study out there.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38431155/
What's particularly interesting is a finding that the authors don't really discuss in their conclusion. These results appear to show that gender affirming care is associated with a reduction in suicide risk 1/n
2/n The paper is a retrospective cohort study that compares young adults and some teens who were referred for gender related services in Finland with a cohort that was matched using age and sex. The median age in the study was 19, so the majority of the population are adults.
3/n The study is very limited. The authors had access to the Finnish registries which include a wide range of data, but chose to only correct their cohorts for age, sex, and number of psychiatric appointments prior to their inclusion in the cohort.
These headlines have to be some of the most ridiculous I've seen in a while
The study tested 18 different PFAS in a tiny sample of 176 people. Of those, one had a barely significant association with thyroid cancer
This is genuinely just not news at all
Here's the study. I'm somewhat surprised it even got published if I'm honest. A tiny case-control study, they looked at 88 people with thyroid cancer and 88 controls thelancet.com/journals/ebiom…
Here are the main results. There was a single measured PFAS which had a 'significant' association with the cancer, the others just look a bit like noise to me
A new study has gone viral for purportedly showing that running therapy had similar efficacy to medication for depression
Which is weird, because a) it's not a very good study and b) seems not to show that at all 1/n
2/n The study is here. The authors describe it as a "partially randomized patient preference design", which is a wildly misleading term. In practice, this is simply a cohort study, where ~90% of the patients self-selected into their preferred treatment sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
3/n This is a big problem, because it means that there are likely confounding factors between the two groups (i.e. who is likely to choose running therapy over meds?). Instead of a useful, randomized trial, this is a very small (n=141) non-randomized paper
The study showed that COVID-19 had, if anything, very few long-term issues for children! As a new father, I find this data very reassuring regarding #LongCovid in kids 1/n
2/n The study is here, it's a retrospective cohort comparing children aged 0-14 who had COVID-19 to a matched control using a database of primary care visits in Italy onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ap…
3/ The authors found that there was an increased risk of a range of diagnoses for the kids with COVID-19 after their acute disease, including things like runny noses, anxiety/depression, diarrhoea, etc
This study has recently gone viral, with people saying that it shows that nearly 20% of highly vaccinated people get Long COVID
I don't think it's reasonable to draw these conclusions based on this research. Let's talk about bias 1/n
2/n The study is here. It is a survey of people who tested positive to COVID-19 in Western Australia from July-Aug 2022 medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
3/n This immediately gives us our first source of bias
We KNOW that most cases of COVID-19 were missed at this point in the pandemic, so we're only getting the sample of those people who were sick enough to go and get tested