1. We've updated our Bayesian meta-analysis of the effectiveness of #ivermectin in treating #COVID19 to take acount of concerns about veracity of certain studies (notably Elgazzar). Summary with link to full paper: probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/07/iverme…
2. It evaluates sensitivity of the conclusions to any single study by removing one study at a time. In the worst cas (Elgazzar removed) results remain robust, for both severe and mild/moderate Covid-19. Ivermectin reduces mortality. Full paper: dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.…
3. (should be "worst case" not "worst cas"!!) So it supports the conclusions of @PierreKory@BIRDGroupUK etc
4. Also, as with previous papers that 'challenge' the main stream narrative, the paper was not accepted on @medrxivpreprint Explanation is curious given the whole point of a preprint server is to publish unreviewed work (& they normally automatically accept anything in scope):
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
3. But the conclusions of such studies are also confounded by failing to consider non-Covid deaths; this overestimate the safety of the vaccine if there were serious adverse reactions. In fact multiple confounding factors will overestimate vaccine effectiveness.
4. One factor is how/whether a person is classified as a Covid ‘case’, Covid ‘hospitalization’ & Covid ‘death’. These can differ between vacc & unvaccinated. The unvaccinated who die ‘with’ as opposed to ‘from’ Covid are more likely to be classified as Covid deaths.
5. Another critical factor is how/whether a person is classified as ‘vaccinated’. Any person testing positive for Covid or dying of any cause within 14 days of their second dose is now classified by the CDC as ‘unvaccinated’
1. This letter in the latest issue of the American Journal of Therapeutics is a summary of our analysis. Even after removing the contraversial Elgazzar study the results still support ivermectin being an effective treatment for #Covid_19. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
2. When #COVID19 first struck in 2020 we applied causal probabilistic models to better understand & explain the data (it's what we do) & were influenced only by academic findings. In fact, we initially concluded that widespread random testing was needed theconversation.com/coronavirus-co…
3. We published articles in peer reviewed journals about this and related issues on infection and fatality rates that were not considered 'contraversial' doi.org/10.1080/136698…
1. Here's confirmation email from .@SpursOfficial that starting Saturday they're party to the Government's removal of our civil liberties.
2. Moreover, the plan is for the Club to implement full medical apartheid starting September - when ONLY proof of vaccination (i.e. vaccine passport) will enable entry.
3. While it's disappointing that .@THSTOfficial, who are supposed to stand up for fans' rights, are supporting current restrictions (and even asking for more, like masking) I welcome their statement opposing the vaccine passports: thstofficial.com/thst-news/thst…
1. Some people are looking at today's Public Health England report and concluding the Case Fatality Rate for Delta positive cases is 6.5 times higher for vaccinated compared to unvaccinated. But this is an instance of Simpson's paradox as shown by this table
2. Colleague .@MartinNeil9 pointed this out. In both age categories the rate among vaccinated is lower but when aggregated vaccinated is higher. It's because a much greater proportion in the older group are vaccinated compared younger group & most deaths occur in the former
3. It's worth noting, however, that in the <50 age group there's little difference in fatality rate between vaccinated & unvaccinated. Also, worth noting the concerns I've raised generally about all studies into risk/benefits of Covid-19 vaccines here: probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/06/why-al…
1. It's 16 days since we submitted a 250-word response to .@TheLancet pointing out the potentially serious limitation in the article they published (5 May) on Pfizer vaccine effectiveness. Response is still 'with editor'.
3. One caveat I should add is that I no longer believe ANY conclusions that are based on results of PCR testing are credible (and yes - this applies to conclusions in our own work where we relied on PCR test results).