Health Nerd Profile picture
Sep 10, 2021 13 tweets 5 min read Read on X
This graphic has been passed around a lot by the ivermectin crowd, so I thought I'd very briefly explain why it's quite clearly incorrect 1/10 Image
2/10 The graphic is based on this preprint on medrxiv, which appears to make several mistakes that lead to a lack of much meaning in the final outcomes of the analysis Image
3/10 The basic idea of the paper is to split countries up by their use of ivermectin to treat river blindness, and then compare them based on COVID-19 deaths

There are two main issues with this Image
4/10 The first problem is the exposure data - saying "these countries have been treated for endemic onchocerciasis" doesn't actually make any estimate of how many people took ivermectin in 2020/21
5/10 If you look at scientific publications into onchocerciasis, it looks like ~90million people across Africa used to receive ivermectin yearly for this purpose i.e. journals.plos.org/plosntds/artic…
5.5/10 However, this mass-distribution of ivermectin for river blindness by the WHO was PHASED OUT IN 2008-2015. There are individual programs ongoing, but it is not correct to use past estimates of endemic disease to classify countries
who.int/about/evaluati… Image
6/10 Conversely, the WHO does still assist in distribution of ivermectin under a program to eliminate lymphatic filiariasis

This includes countries labelled "No ivermectin" in the above graphic
who.int/publications/i… ImageImageImage
7/10 So the exposure is meaningless - this chart is comparing countries that use ivermectin to...countries that ALSO use ivermectin on a mass scale

But the outcome is wrong too
8/10 We KNOW that the death data in many African countries for COVID-19 is not great. For one thing, some countries simply do not record any COVID-19 deaths (or test for COVID-19 at all)... Image
9/10 ...for another, scientists in Zambia have PROVEN that the death data there is a drastic undercount. Comparing places is more about who records deaths better than any meaningful attribution of causality bmj.com/content/bmj/37… Image
10/10 To sum up - this graphic is meaningless. Neither the exposure OR the outcome are correct. Many people in the orange countries received ivermectin, and many more people than recorded in the blue countries likely died of COVID-19 Image
11/10 One minor addendum - this took me a total of about half an hour to check. The study itself is simple, and looking up information on mass ivermectin distribution is not that complex

The incorrect graphic has been shared 10,000s of times 🤷‍♂️
12/10 It is also worth briefly clarifying that this is only one method of ivermectin distribution - it does not include private prescription and uptake of ivermectin in any African countries during the pandemic, which is probably also a huge amount

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Health Nerd

Health Nerd Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GidMK

Mar 4
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. Image
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/
Read 8 tweets
Feb 20
Fascinating study.

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. Image
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.
Read 11 tweets
Oct 26, 2023
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 Image
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 Image
Read 7 tweets
Oct 11, 2023
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
Image
Image
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
Read 15 tweets
Oct 6, 2023
This is SO MISLEADING

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 Image
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 Image
Read 13 tweets
Sep 20, 2023
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 Image
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
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(