There is a lot of medical nonsense out there that is depressing and sad, but every once in a while it's worth remembering that large animal chiropractic exists and is both very silly and incredibly funny to watch
Here is a video of a chiropractor 'adjusting' a giraffe's spine by poking it. A giraffe has vertebrae that are ~30cm thick, you can't adjust that without a large hammer of some kind
Here's a video of someone adjusting the spine of a ~600Kg dairy cow with their bare hands. The cow does not even notice
In a similar vein, here is a chiropractor working on a 400Kg pig. The pig stays asleep the entire time its spine is being 'adjusted'
Anyway, chiropractic in humans is probably not much more than therapeutic massage with some theatrical placebo attached, but when you're doing it to an animal that weighs 5x as much as you it's just quite humorous to watch
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I always find it bizarre that people treat voting rights as some sort of philosophical battle when it's really very simple maths: right-wing groups will always act to block rights, left-wing groups will always try to get more people voting
The groups who don't vote are traditionally disadvantaged groups - younger people, lower-income, minorities etc. There's some variation within that structure, but it's pretty consistent
These are also the groups most likely to vote left-wing. If you're being brutally pragmatic (as most political people are), and left-wing group will want to broaden the vote because most of those extra voters will probably vote for them
The Lebanese ivermectin study has been retracted, with the lead author claiming that the fake data used in the paper was meant to "train a research assistant"
How this mistake was made, and why they generated an entirely fake dataset that matches their actual conclusions which was statistically analyzed and published is not elucidated on
Gotta say, I've never created fake outcome data to train a research assistant (in what?), but if I did I doubt it would be kept anywhere near the real data from my trial 🤷♂️
People commonly claim that pharmaceutical companies can't make money on drugs that are off or close to being off-patent
So let's talk about the famous case of Nexium and Prilosec 1/n
2/n The story begins in 1989, when the company that later became Astrazeneca patented a drug for acid reflux that worked better than anything on the market. The drug, named Prilosec, became one of the best-selling medications at the time
3/n However, in the late 90s/early 00s, the company making Prilosec faced an issue - their drug was soon to be off patent, and despite record sales generic manufacturers wanted to start selling cheaper versions
2/n Firstly, we've got studies that probably or definitely did not take place as described. I'd not include these in any analysis, certainly not an aggregate model
3/n We've got a few case series that are just a bit of a waste of time - without even controlling for age, these provide no useful evidence even as part of an aggregate model
Some of the ivermectin trials are just...wildly terrible
This study has been cited 23 times. Appears in the Bryant et al and other systematic reviews. And it is just very bad
The study claims to be an RCT comparing ivermectin to a control group for prophylaxis, giving either ivermectin or no prophylaxis at all to contacts of presumed COVID cases
Firstly, the study is published in a journal that has an entire page dedicated to why it's not predatory, which is, uh, not a brilliant sign. Apparently it's not a problem that they were delisted from Pubmed
The study in question was preprinted in November. Published earlier this year. It's been included in over a dozen systematic reviews
And it's borked. Enormously flawed
If the journal follows the traditional academic path, they'll wait 5 years until no one cares any more and then quietly post an editorial note, hoping no one notices. Meanwhile, the study has informed clinical guidelines and patient treatment for over a year already 🤷♂️