It's interesting, because the ivermectin crowd are coming after me full force now, but they're so wildly inept that their main accusations are just tediously untrue
For example, someone's recently implied that I'm paid by Bill Gates because a completely different department in my university received a grant for work on condoms from the Gates foundation, which is hilariously stupid for a whole range of reasons
What's really fascinating is that there's a lot of defamation and ad hominem, but basically no one has raised any objections to our analysis of studies, which is what you usually see when people have no real argument
Anyway, for the record I've never received any cash from the Gates foundation, and while I think the foundation does some great work I reckon it'd be better if we raised taxes on billionaires rather than relying on haphazard philanthropy as a general theme
Also, probably worth reiterating that IVERMECTIN MAY BE BENEFICIAL FOR COVID-19
It's unlikely to have a benefit on the level some people have proposed, but that doesn't mean it's totally useless. We just need further evidence to know for sure
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is, I think, the best discourse I've seen on the whole Bad Art Friend deal. Worth reading if your soul craves discussions on drama rottenindenmark.org/2021/10/10/ide…
I think one other point that I'd make about Kolker's original piece, is that interviewing only friends of one 'side' was just bad journalism. They defend their friend, and all you see is justifications for objectively bad behaviour that they also participated in
I mean, this whole fragment struck me as bizarre. The entire thing is a friend defending her buddy, but the actual context - that her friend wrote an openly bullying story that she then tried to monetize - is just brushed off
Of all the terrible defenses of ivermectin fraud, I think the "but 20% of all medical research is said to be fraudulent!" angle is one of the weirdest
Firstly, it doesn't matter at all. If every house on your street is one fire, pointing at the other houses and yelling "they're on fire too!" doesn't extinguish the flames eating away at your wedding photos
Secondly, the 20% figure is a very extreme estimate. Now, I thoroughly respect Prof Ben Mol, who is the one who made that assessment, but I'm not sure I agree that the average rate is actually that high blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05…
Lots of people have been asking me to take a look at this observational ivermectin trial from Argentina, and I thought it'd be a nice change from all the fraud so here's a bit of a thread 1/n
2/n The trial is here, and it is a fairly simple epidemiological trial comparing people who were given ivermectin with those who weren't on ICU admission/death using large-scale registries in Argentina zenodo.org/record/5525362…
3/n I've done a brief check for fraud, and the study looks fine. Honestly, I have no real issues with this paper as is, it's just not very useful as evidence for ivermectin
For those interested in facts, there are two more fraudulent ivermectin trials with news dropping this week, at least two more with very high probability of fraud soon to come
It's also worth noting that when I talk about fraud, I'm only considering clinical and observational trials. Most of the ecological trials are so woeful that it doesn't really matter if anyone faked them, and I don't really assess basic science
Anyway, if you want to know exactly how many studies are flawed, we'll hopefully have it all up this week. Takes time to assemble this stuff working unpaid in our free time!
Throughout the pandemic, there has been an apparent contradiction - low-income places appear to have lower death rates from COVID-19 than higher-income areas
This makes no sense on the face of it
So, we looked at the infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 in every place that we could find, using antibodies to estimate the number of infections in each area and the number of registered deaths as our numerator