Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

Post by X3h7P4icntav » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 11:32 AM UTC

Post by UncleMeat » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 11:54 AM UTC

timr wrote: post #413

KennyBlanken wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will re-post some thoughts I have previously shared from John P.A. Ioannidis who is a professor of medicine and thoughtful critic of medical research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis#COVID-19 > In an editorial on STAT published March 17, 2020, Ioannidis called the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic a "once-in-a-century evidence fiasco" and wrote that lockdowns were likely an overreaction to unre…

Your comment is the worst kind of ad hominem. You're simply dismissing one of the most-cited scientists in the world because he wrote something you disagree with. He was right about the IFR for Covid-19, by the way. Subsequent research has upheld the finding. The primary factor that influences average IFR is the age of the population you're looking at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554 > All syste…

Post by Fjolsvith » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 12:32 PM UTC

dboreham wrote: post #338

trts wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I saw with the Ivermectin metastudies (which I did a fair amount of research on given that people close to me had decided to employ it as a prophylactic against Covid) was that the people who did the metanalyses were trained to read the results rather than grapple with the methodology and statistics. None of the study results were robust, but many of the study outcomes were positive. So they were counting…

In my mind, there is also underlying all this the idea that if a drug actually works, then there will be many doctors going on CNN to say that it totally works; that they're super excited by their patients recovering. In other words, the effect should be profound. If the effect is marginal, why bother, even if it is a real measurable effect in well conducted trials? I mean : that doctors observe that some therapy or…

Post by ModernMech » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 12:58 PM UTC

anoonmoose wrote: post #441

twofornone wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one glaring problem is that two years into the pandemic we still don't know...and given the rigid taboo which has sprung up around HCQ and other treatments, frankly I don't really trust the data. Yes, the initial studies in support of HCQ were low quality, but the primary initial study which the media jumped on to "discredit" HCQ was laughably biased, completely disregarding the early stage/prophylactic dosin…

Well, with that attitude at least you can never be proven wrong, which must be nice and certainly isn't revealing about the logic of your position

Post by crowbahr » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 1:08 PM UTC

adamdusty wrote: post #386

toss1 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#2 is for sure bviously preferable, but Good Luck With That. Once you get below the top N% in intelligence levels (5%-20% in my experience), the ability to 1) understand any kind of complex systems, 2) read, understand, contextualize and retain data, and maintain any rigorous logical thinking structure (e.g., keeping previously eliminated options eliminated) declines rapidly. The result is that, despite having absolu…

Is there any evidence that intelligence is genetic? I dont think your height was stopping you from getting to the NBA, nor is that even remotely obvious. You may find your height to be discouraging, but you could have very well possessed the potential to play professional basketball. You'd be 3 inches taller than Muggsy Bouges who played for 14 seasons, 1 inch taller than 13 year vet Earl Boykins, and the same height…