From Dr Tess Lawrie initial response to the fake, bias & fake BBC article... she will likely have more input shortly #Ivermectin #WaningWinterIsComing #FreedomFlu https://t.co/bZugfDaPFu
@JasenMykel @danibobaniFL @drmikehart Here are the results of a competent team of experts' review of the evidence for Ivermectin: https://t.co/v0YHv16ht9
@Vieux_Rhone @OSS117_Helsinki Tenez, un peu de lecture https://t.co/stvCwN3Qyx
RT @Greyinggeek1: @jamesleewright2 @drmikehart https://t.co/Prmj4t7o8v https://t.co/vfM2efbB7n https://t.co/IzsYAfcL2p I also included o…
@JanetBrooks20 @AmerMedicalAssn Where is the peer review results? Peer review of studies is essential component since it’s an independent assessment of the research done by experts in the field. One peer review group refused this study done by Morgenstern
@truther74 @ParentChallenge @NationalFile https://t.co/OIzAHv4lvs A published medical site says you are wrong..
@CannonGreg "Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials" https://t.co/9M8djQtXCC https://t.co/ltoz8FH8XK https://t.co/rV7THMIGnc
@KamilErgan1 @GidMK Evidence dose not support remdesivir and we do not have molnupiravir were I work yet... We do have a high quality systematic review of ivermectin that found no benefit for treatment or prevention of COVID19. https://t.co/feZbCj5HkQ
@MarcusRVilla1 @twinelm @Pursiainen @LindsayClemmens @yakityxax @klaus_kinski @charliekirk11 https://t.co/AiSiY1WIGM https://t.co/ldbvuSELy8 https://t.co/bu7MpCXGNe Here are some actual scientific studies. Waiting on yours champ
@KelvinW40709444 @Quel_the_hell @NC5 I'll play along! "...we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of Ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use [of] Ivermectin for treatment or p
@river17_eagLLe Cochrane library: Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials #covid19 #ivermectin https://t.co/vp6iwh6uE3
@Prportinho @K_Sheldrick Re: "Not really." Yes, really. If this was any other drug that produced a pattern of evidence like this, we would have moved on. The results are what one would expect from a failed drug. https://t.co/KiRaYi41LS https://t.co/kFX
@PamalaBassham Sure. Most of the Ivermectin studies have been small and/or poorly done. The largest one was completely withdrawn for making up data. A meta-analysis of all controlled Ivermectin studies found little evidence it is useful for COVID-19. ht
RT @Greyinggeek1: @jamesleewright2 @drmikehart https://t.co/Prmj4t7o8v https://t.co/vfM2efbB7n https://t.co/IzsYAfcL2p I also included o…
@michaeljburry There is insufficient evidence proving it works as a treatment for Covid-19 though. And as a public figure that's what you should be tweeting: https://t.co/j3Nnuxcdjl
@Tashawithatea @SteveHenley_RCI @BreesAnna That one had been discredited - maybe read Cochrane. https://t.co/2SHc2Dz6fO
@Ophir17830659 Re: "promising mechanisms of action" 🤣 This clearly isn't your field. Anyway, ivermectin was already researched. It has the profile of a medication that doesn't work, unlike dexamethasone, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, etc. Your bias changes doesn
@tresfeux @EiDee6 @MatrixDisconne1 Das habe ich beim ersten Nachschauen gefunden https://t.co/ATiFng7Z4U
@jamesleewright2 @drmikehart https://t.co/Prmj4t7o8v https://t.co/vfM2efbB7n https://t.co/IzsYAfcL2p I also included one that says it is inconclusive. You won't see many of these results on corporate media, because it isn't flashy. Some studies show it
@HonorUkb @doctor_oxford This is the standard required to make us change our minds about Ivermectin. It might come (I'm not optimistic) but in meantime the evidence is too poor to make us change treatment. https://t.co/SeAJzy97gY
4/5 This is the EbMCsquared paper https://t.co/N46yWb2I9G and this is Popp et al https://t.co/NXuKLgNcmm
@Smalls97T @drmikehart The NIH database does not evaluate papers for validity; it merely collects them. More reliable papers cited in the same database debunk the ivermectin fraud, for example https://t.co/mc7ZpHi7Ez
@bminn7660 @CosmosMagazine @K_Sheldrick @jamesheathers @JackMLawrence @GidMK @sTeamTraen Re: "wouldn’t it be helpful" No. You don't get to cite other drugs to evade ivermectin failing. It's failure does not depend on what goes on with other medications.
@HonorUkb @doctor_oxford Best looking at what the lads that actually know how to review research say. https://t.co/50Obs59xs8
@MadetojaStig @valkeapaa_jukka Vaikka ammatti-ihmiset sanovat muuta, #trolli t jauhavat tätä ivermektiiniroskaa ilman mitään todellista näyttöä mistään tehosta. Kyllä on ihmeellistä puuhaa. https://t.co/JpEDLJ1Vts https://t.co/kzgp7Buc2D https://t.co/K9Yvn
@kimmorrall @awong37 https://t.co/r51ZgakCES This notes the studies are small and not high quality.
@Covid19Crusher @K_Sheldrick Re: "If you believe that scientific decision should rely on all the available information" As usual, you're trying to abuse confounders in lower quality research to disinform people https://t.co/VLTYbfJqYN https://t.co/KiRaYi
RT @AtomsksSanakan: "Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 o…
"Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials" https://t.co/9M8djQtXCC https://t.co/BC2yKzh07L https://t.co/VLTYbfJqYN https://t.co/0mJYS6
@MinnaSalomaa3 @karppalap @AAnalyytikko @lasleh Aloitetaanko vaikka tästä ivermektiinistä: https://t.co/kzgp7Buc2D
@EdoajoEric Contrarians/denialists are just resorting to "observational" analyses on ivermectin because they're just desperate to evade evidence of its failure, as if we don't know about the evidence pyramid. 🙄 https://t.co/9M8djQtXCC https://t.co/VLTYbf
@MattyJaded @BBC Have you actually read our paper and do you understand its purpose? We were not seeking to create a meta-analysis or systematic review. The Cochrane Library which is viewed as the ultimate gold standard of meta-analyses reached the same co
RT @balkraix: @Dr_Pilgrim La unica revision que no incluye ese estudio y el otro que se demostró fraudulento llega a conclusiones opuestas…
@CumSupremacist Nah, it's not worth it. It would be simpler to just... not get severe covid. If only there was a way to prevent that 🤔 https://t.co/7s3l9ib9ra
@kuehne_jon @blgrapper13 @vodkacraan @sfchronicle 1) I’m not changing your mind. Burden of proof falls on YOU to support wild claim w evidence. 2) A questionable source using a single graph w primary goal of SELLING BOOKS is not evidence. 3) No legit, un-b
@JamieLMyer @Covid19Critical Have you ever done a search on https://t.co/pW9G4BjJaE ? If you prefer material on iivveerrmmeeccttiinnee (just to cite some): https://t.co/9AW6UPCah7 https://t.co/79lvjg4UVt https://t.co/gjY72OFpS4 https://t.co/CAUTP213v7
@mmpaquette @mallenbaker @alexandrosM @K_Sheldrick By now, results that dramatic just aren't believable. And the chart doesn't include the one organization that is the world's leader at doing meta-analysis (Cochrane). See https://t.co/r3iuCFxuyX
@Naturtier @PSchmey @lainee42 Dieses Mittel ist wesentlich gefährlicher als eine gut dokumentierte, millionenfach durchgeführte Impfung. Unfassbar, dass man ein Parasitenmittel lieber nehmen möchte, als sich impfen zu lassen. Das zeigt überdeutlich wie ver
@lifeisfornow @BillyRalph @HealthFreedomIE @Independent_ie Nothing like a good Cochrane review.Not saying it doesn't have it's uses,but NPHET's hands are tied in my opinion.The guidance from bodies such as WHO &EMA are clear. Wrong&totally inaccura
Reality>>>>>>>>>https://t.co/9YONGJE1Vb
@5Nanc5 @RadioCanadaInfo @JeanBottari Ce n'est pas efficace https://t.co/L1krlLoMKO
RT @balkraix: Recordemos que el beneficio de la ivermectina contra el covid se basaba sobre todo en 2 estudios https://t.co/cOzHQSkbXe Uno…
#Ivermectin This is the document you can use to answer the following: “But there’s no evidence that IVM works.” “There are no randomized controlled trials of IVM.” “The withdrawn study nullifies the conclusions of the meta-analyses of IVM.” https://t.co
@ArthurBraby @reformparty_uk @talkRADIO Science says otherwise. https://t.co/rJ1KBDVEsL
@TTonyhenderson @reformparty_uk @TiceRichard @talkRADIO We’ll that’s on the basis it works. Which it doesn’t. https://t.co/rJ1KBDVEsL
@mike2qw @reformparty_uk @talkRADIO Ivermectin does not work. There is no evidence it works. https://t.co/rJ1KBDVEsL
RT @balkraix: @Dr_Pilgrim La unica revision que no incluye ese estudio y el otro que se demostró fraudulento llega a conclusiones opuestas…
Recordemos que el beneficio de la ivermectina contra el covid se basaba sobre todo en 2 estudios https://t.co/cOzHQSkbXe Uno fraudulento y otro que tiene datos repetidos:
@Dr_Pilgrim La unica revision que no incluye ese estudio y el otro que se demostró fraudulento llega a conclusiones opuestas sobre la ivermectina https://t.co/cOzHQSkbXe
@EKurzw https://t.co/165wTLroFG Valitan, ei tehoa.
@hujjah89 @deeladidyy @skshni @khalids Hadoilah..hg go thru stu2 ke study tu?..😁😁😁😁 https://t.co/qK8NIwrGIz
@SoundMoney1 @uprav_dom @linaiolanda "Мы не нашли доказательств в пользу применения ивермектина для лечения или профилактики инфекции COVID-19" ВОЗ рекомендует, но тут же ссылается, на то, что достоверна неизвестна и не изучена эффективность...не вешайте
RT @punk_spastic: Science only uses the current facts that we have. So we can study claims of the sheep dewormer. Yeah it doesn't work, but…
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @Mooshedmellow @GidMK @alexandrosM "Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for tr…
RT @AtomsksSanakan: Even though Dr. Hill left, I hope people still get something out of his insightful analysis and honesty on ivermectin:…
@TimIsThaMan @RobMoore839 @sbABetterLeader @AP There is no high quality data. Stop spreading fucking bullshit which is going to get people killed. https://t.co/0O8IrcwxhU
@ThoughtByJer @SoPoSasquatch @PerroV7 @mmpadellan https://t.co/7WPostYYpl I think we agree, not saying it does not work, just saying there is not enough evidence
RT @CochraneJapan: 新型コロナウイルス感染症 (COVID-19) の予防および治療に対するイベルメクチン https://t.co/nL80QRC1rf
No evidence that ivermectin works. If there was any signal, we would have noted it by now. There is dexamethasone and molnupiravir which have been shown to work. Enough of this obsession with a drug that does nothing for C-19.
RT @CochraneJapan: 多くの方にご興味を持っていただいておりますが、エビデンスの確実性が非常に低いというのは、「効果が無い」ということではありません。「効果があるかどうか確実なことは言えない」という解釈が正しいです。効果があるかないかをはっきりさせるために、より…
@merja_rantala @svarmavuo Jos katsotaan mitä Cochrane Libraryn systemaattinen katsaus asiasta sanoo, niin nykyisten tutkimusten pohjalta ei voi sanoa että ivermektiinistä olisi hyötyä, eikä myöskään sitä että siitä ei olisi hyötyä, eikä sitäkään että siitä
@justkiddin1980 @mevrouw_Judith @Lauwke3 @hatsjikkidee @Petra_Lambers @lindavandenhov2 @Skankhunt2A @Stilste @RonvanBaden "Behandelt" ja, maar hielp het? Nee. Dat is precies het probleem. Als je een goede controle groep vergelijkt met IVM is er geen versch
RT @BitaScicomm: Scientists publishing fraudulent data will have to say good bye to a career in science. This is disgraceful!
Scientists publishing fraudulent data will have to say good bye to a career in science. This is disgraceful!
この画像使うの何度目だろう?って感じだけれど、やっと似たような案件がニュースで取り上げられたんだなぁと、、、遅いよ。 上記画像の元記事は以下のURL https://t.co/3GShUG9lko
@Koljonen_Tuomas @hsfi Cochrane-katsaus: "Based on the current very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID‐19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high
@RonaldOverbosch @zegtSjaan @IedemaEls Grotendeels observationele studies. Mits goed uitgevoerd waardevol, maar veel minder betrouwbaar dan double blind placebo controlled RCT. Lees de review van Cochrane anders eens. https://t.co/7gyKd5oCOE Oh, en de c
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @K_Sheldrick That's it, right? It largely boiled down to Elgazzar and Niaee. The former was already known to be fraudu…
@AmandaG36470876 @troyronayne1 @KristinRaworth As is stated here in a world famous data base of all medical research (not just Covid). https://t.co/olwwz3iBr6
@AndrewFleische7 @troyronayne1 @KristinRaworth These are *not* verifiable references. *If* ivermectin treated covid then why is the pharmacy company not claiming this? Because they can’t - not RCTs proving. As is clearly stated here in this reliable data
@I_am_a1ice @tuesday_only @Christi90711921 @patriottakes "just follow the money"? Like with HCQ and those who held stock / were quick to buy it as soon as Dr. turdump M.D. started pushing it in a classic pump'n'dump scheme? lol, sure Also, did you miss
@HumansRNature @horsn9 @simsy1977 No, not me, I never claimed trust me. I linked the source of my claims. A meta analysis of all the research published on Ivermectin in treating c19. I'll link it again I guess: https://t.co/LPHD2gaqle
@AlexJLeaf He's trolling. "Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials." https://t.co/9M8djQtXCC https://t.co/UMnTozBa0j https://t.co/VLTY
@HumansRNature @simsy1977 Lack of research? Lots of research. Ivermectin was tested internationally. In small scale local clinics to major research hospitals. Double blind studies, control group controlled studies, some open label, some not. Thousands of p
@HumansRNature @simsy1977 If you want some peer reviewed reading on the subject this is great: https://t.co/LPHD2gaqle
@Potholer54T @AbdenurFlavio @BretWeinstein @IngrahamAngle @TheRightMelissa @SkyNewsAust @tarahaelle @JackMLawrence @GidMK @stephaniemlee @kenbensinger 'Risk of bias' assessment is crucial for meta-analyses + evaluating medical research. Non-experts like @
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @K_Sheldrick That's it, right? It largely boiled down to Elgazzar and Niaee. The former was already known to be fraudu…
RT @AtomsksSanakan: Might try another poll at some point... https://t.co/x0vAskg1O7 https://t.co/BlaXLUVp3l https://t.co/cZipkQVKmM
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @K_Sheldrick That's it, right? It largely boiled down to Elgazzar and Niaee. The former was already known to be fraudu…
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @K_Sheldrick That's it, right? It largely boiled down to Elgazzar and Niaee. The former was already known to be fraudu…
@K_Sheldrick That's it, right? It largely boiled down to Elgazzar and Niaee. The former was already known to be fraudulent. Without either, ivermectin has the results one would expect of a medication that does not work https://t.co/9M8djQtXCC https://t.
@tedlieu @mtgreenee And there is a LOT more out there… it COULD be effective and a 2 minute search finds this.,. Are you ignorant or lying? https://t.co/rm9W8wi27Z
@Mrtin60143414 Esses são apenas alguns exemplos. Existem inúmeros estudos sérios publicados em revistas científicas que atestaram a eficácia da IVM e outos farmacos. https://t.co/yZfPoDGcot https://t.co/o8W5R2TlrQ https://t.co/hViCryHHpr https://t.co/6K
@Liberteur @GidMK @DanielGriffinMD Which, btw, listed the study as having a 'high risk of bias' in most results/outcomes: https://t.co/DuLZdTWlqe