I wonder at stuff like this ivermectin in Indonesia "analysis". It's such obvious, boring nonsense that is disprovable with some basic fact-checking, and yet so very popular online
Firstly, the timing of "ivermectin widely available" is wrong. Ivermectin has been "flying off the shelves" in Indonesia since April 2020, with off-label use the entire pandemic
It's pretty obvious that ivermectin has been widely available in Indonesia the entire pandemic (as it is in most places). So what's the weird shaded area about?
Well, in June/July 2021 the Indonesian government approved, the withdrew approval, of ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19. A state-owned pharmaceutical company is planning on producing 4.5 million pills, it appears
Now, astute readers (and anyone able to do basic maths) will note that 4 million pills a week would be enough doses for <2% of Indonesia's population. They will also note that these are PLANS to produce pills, not numbers given
Pharmaceutical supply chains are pretty complex. If we plan to start producing something in June 2021, it's unlikely that people will actually get the pills before August, never mind the next day!
In other words, the shaded "ivermectin widely available" area in the plot doesn't actually show a time period in which ivermectin was any more available than the preceding months for most people in Indonesia 🤷♂️
The original graph is just some vague temporal correlation with fewer cases matched to what is essentially a press release. It proves nothing except that people do love a totally useless graphic
Also, the shaded region coincides with Indonesia's (modest) vaccination campaign and fairly strict measures against COVID including closure of public places, vaccination passports, and full lockdowns on some islands
On top of this, Indonesia has been one of the worst-hit countries in the world, with a large proportion of the country infected over the last 2 years
a) a plan to distribute ivermectin pills by a guy importing the drug reduced COVID cases
b) the lockdowns, vaccines, and infection-derived immunity reduced cases
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This paper came out recently, and it is HUGELY popular among anti-vaccine advocates who are using it to suggest that vaccines don't work
It's also very fundamentally flawed. I'm a bit surprised it was published. Some thoughts 1/n
2/n The paper is here, and it's basically a series of comparisons of publicly-available COVID case and vaccine data conducted by a Harvard professor and a high-school student (note-DO NOT BE MEAN TO THE STUDENT, NEVER BE MEAN TO STUDENTS) link.springer.com/article/10.100…
3/n The study is broken into 2 sections. In the first, the authors took @OurWorldInData info, comparing the previous 7 days of case data between countries by vaccine rates. They produced this graph, showing no relationship between vaccines and reported cases
This review of vitamin D and COVID-19 is ENORMOUSLY popular online, so I thought I'd take a look
There are serious deficiencies here. I'm actually wondering if the paper is a joke? 1/n
2/n The study is here, and it's basically a review where the authors used an anonymous aggregation website and pubmed to collate observational and ecological research into vitamin D medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
3/n As it stands, the search methodology is just...completely deficient. I would recommend the authors read the PRISMA statement and download those tools, there's just no information here to work with
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
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…