There's "The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article" by Asiya Kamber Zaidi & Puya Dehgani-Mobaraki that was pulled by the editor... nature.com/articles/s4142…
There's Tess Lawrie's meta-analysis which got rejected by the Lancet AFTER passing peer review, costing months of delay until it passed review again at a different journal. The interview video where she described the events has been pulled down...
There's Pierre Kory's meta-analysis that was pulled down after being provisionally accepted by Frontiers in Pharmacology... the-scientist.com/news-opinion/f…
Send me more if you have them and I'll try to append to the thread.
I've never really answered the critics of @BetterSkeptics first challenge in one place, so I should probably write this down so I can refer people to it in the future. 🧵
The criticism that has been coming our way should have been somewhat expected, given that in any sensemaking exercise where there's significant disagreement, someone will feel like their side was not fairly represented. That said, it may well be that they were right. Let's see:
Before we get into it, it's important to explain that the main audience for the result of the challenge was myself. Having found the Quillette criticism to be of poor quality, I wanted to see what the *strongest* criticism would possibly be, as I don't want to believe falsehoods.
A big reason pulling me into this whole debate around the pandemic is being baffled by behaviors of people like Sam. Having had high esteem for him, it was important to me to "unpack" our disagreement, to make sure I haven't lost my mind.
I started by doing a comment thread on his podcast with Eric Topol, which, as you will discover, left me deeply unsatisfied.
That was, it turns out, a bad start, as he ended up calling me out in his AMA 17, never having spoken to me before and ended up completely straw-manning my argument. Completely out of character for the Sam Harris of old.
I want to investigate the Hector Carvallo situation. This 🧵is likely to become overlong and meandering as I'll try to figure things out in real-time, so if you want to help please tag along, and if you want "just the facts" best to just mute this one and wait for the summary.
I'm aware of 3 main articles I'll try to comb through, and I've read none of them closely. Please comment with other resources.
I'm realizing that the insitence on Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) as the only evidence that matters when deciding if a medicine/supplement should be used, structurally biases against generics, over-the-counter meds/supplements, and those with few side-effects. Here's why:🧵
The first class of problems has to do with wide availability when the subject of effectiveness on a new disease is raised.
1. Cheap OTC generics with few side-effects get used a lot in an emergency, where word of mouth spreads, making it much harder to form a control group.
2. These substances, when there's a suspicion they can be effective in an important disease, will spark many studies all over the world. This means there will be many small trials, of varying protocol/dosage and study quality. This is a big problem for two reasons: