@ChamorritaMaraj @NICKIMINAJ https://t.co/N3TipynEYo Available data suggest that one-third of SARS-CoV-2 infections remain asymptomatic (Oran 2021), but there is still uncertainty around this estimate. About 80% of symptomatic cases show mild symptoms,
@NICKIMINAJ https://t.co/N3TipynEYo Available data suggest that one-third of SARS-CoV-2 infections remain asymptomatic (Oran 2021), but there is still uncertainty around this estimate. About 80% of symptomatic cases show mild symptoms,
RT @maruirin: @hanakihideaki 有効性が高いものを単純に論文の数で見るのは意味がないです。規模が小さいものをいくつも集めても、大規模治験の信用度とは違うので。 やはり、一番参考にできそうなメタ解析は、質の高いと言われてるコクランなのではと思います。…
@DigitalPatriot0 This study was proven to be flawed. Please stop tweeting false information https://t.co/3S1hbgqrUB
@remaining_human @Warnzwifey @DrNeilStone Cochrane understands it better than all of us & there's no confidence in Kory's review. The 1 useful ref has a high degree of uncertainty. It's not high quality evidence: you may not understand that is necessar
@mav0095 @DrNeilStone Well...based on just 1 poorly qualifying study: "Kory 2021 concluded there was a mortality benefit based on the inclusion of six of the 13 studies...there remains only one small study (Kirti 2021), and a high degree of uncertainty for
@JulioRazona Que cada uno opine. https://t.co/fMGVhTbRLz https://t.co/BTEgbEwjDD
@hanakihideaki 有効性が高いものを単純に論文の数で見るのは意味がないです。規模が小さいものをいくつも集めても、大規模治験の信用度とは違うので。 やはり、一番参考にできそうなメタ解析は、質の高いと言われてるコクランなのではと思います。 https://t.co/AHUCw1DuvZ
@Aria_Amadeus @VoteDarlene High uncertainty in the 1 study that qualifies: "Kory 2021 concluded there was a mortality benefit based on the inclusion of six of the 13 studies...there remains only one small study (Kirti 2021), and a high degree of uncertaint
@Aria_Amadeus @VoteDarlene High uncertainty in the 1 study that qualifies: "Kory 2021 concluded there was a mortality benefit based on the inclusion of six of the 13 studies...there remains only one small study (Kirti 2021), and a high degree of uncertaint
@ReallyRima @SusiLynette @PierreKory High uncertainty in the 1 study that qualifies: "Kory 2021 concluded there was a mortality benefit based on the inclusion of six of the 13 studies...there remains only one small study (Kirti 2021), and a high degree of
@Attackdog14 @JevMad66 @PierreKory High uncertainty in the 1 study that qualifies: "Kory 2021 concluded there was a mortality benefit based on the inclusion of six of the 13 studies...there remains only one small study (Kirti 2021), and a high degree of un
@DavidLandrum6 @FluteOld @PierreKory High uncertainty in the 1 study that qualifies: "Kory 2021 concluded there was a mortality benefit based on the inclusion of six of the 13 studies...there remains only one small study (Kirti 2021), and a high degree of
@badepistemology @dickgregory2011 @geofflath @PatrickHilsman Here are actual scientific studies on the matter. Spoiler alert it doesn't work. https://t.co/2rupV69Hlw
@Attackdog14 @Diana88703651 @PierreKory High uncertainty in the 1 study that qualifies: "Kory 2021 concluded there was a mortality benefit based on the inclusion of six of the 13 studies...there remains only one small study (Kirti 2021), and a high degree
@terriscofield @CaulfieldTim @cochranecollab @Pien_Huang @HealthWatch123 Do you realize the number of trials, scientists or participants do not mean IVM works? A high-quality SRMA of RCTs doesn’t support the claim IVM prevents or treats #covid19 https://t.
@PierreKory You talking about her or you? "Kory 2021 concluded there was a mortality benefit based on the inclusion of six of the 13 studies ...there remains only one small study (Kirti 2021), and a high degree of uncertainty for a mortality benefit." htt
@DJ3370178658 @DrNeilStone The few larger trials that have been conducted so far have seen no benefit https://t.co/A4abpUt27C
@Covid19Crusher In my last discussion in germany i got this answer: https://t.co/Ri8FMvSOPM Your opinion?
@StreuliRoland ...und wenn man die Schrottstudien rausnimmt, fällt der Dreck durch: https://t.co/hV4AOjVWXx Aber nur #Covidioten plappern ohne Hirn...
RT @Marc_Veld: @saskiaveluwe @dejagermakelaar @justanother1 @cafeweltschmerz @ElzevH @NOS @DanielTuijnman De beste 9 IVM studies bestudeert…
@saskiaveluwe @dejagermakelaar @justanother1 @cafeweltschmerz @ElzevH @NOS @DanielTuijnman De beste 9 IVM studies bestudeert door Conchrane collective; beste metaanalysis: https://t.co/0XJOo45RTS
@colmcq @BerryTartlet @GidMK @cochranecollab Cochrane have done a review of Ivermectin for COVID. No surprise what it says.. https://t.co/i2fofOjfyH
RT @theo_mazarakis: @Coiny_McBitface @DrNeilStone This link contains high bias risk/questionable integrity studies, some already retracted;…
@Shanetdevans @RonInCMH @GeorgeTakei For the sake of clarity and transparency there is another study that concluded there was not enough evidence at this time. https://t.co/8REKUcHz4f
@momakil Nope, man weiß leider noch gar nichts, weil keiner eine Studie dazu hat: https://t.co/L23wv0EVVy
@barbarab1974 @87Marymary https://t.co/STTzgrl3hM bisogna leggere e studiare altrimenti si fanno figure imbarazzanti!!!!
@MarjeticaM Če kdo se želi lotit raziskovanja Ivermectina, je tukaj dober začetek, saj ima reference do mnogih študij: https://t.co/J7mTjuKchs
@hiroredrose3216 @dsk42406081 メタ解析に関しては権威のあるコクランが信用性があるのでそっちを話題にすれば良いと思います。 https://t.co/UHhUhSYn4s ただコクランも結局、今のエビデンスでは治療に使うことは支持できないとなっていて(Romanと結論は同じ)討論したところで北里の先生の納得する結果にはならないかもです。
@ShawnSa21229641 @chrismartenson there have been a ton of studies on this shit yet y'all dummies still act like it's some conspiracy when in reality, it just doesn't work https://t.co/lsiO5ZA9qU
@JoelMCurzon @Tashiwityar @molsjames Ivermectin studies are deficient… https://t.co/2nArkjnyHG
@Coiny_McBitface @DrNeilStone This link contains high bias risk/questionable integrity studies, some already retracted; garbage in=garbage out. The website you link does not weigh studies based on any criteria, just piles them. Current State of Science: ht
@VALUBULL28 @sheltigurl @DrNeilStone 1. This study was published in Am J Ther, not in "NIH". 2. It contains high bias risk/questionable integrity studies; garbage in=garbage out. 3. The website you link does not weigh studies just piles them. 4. State of S
RT @StarRider8008: @DrTomFrieden Yet many studies seem to show that it has "significant improvements for mortality, hospitalization, recove…
Ivermectina para la prevención y el tratamiento de la covid-19 | Cochrane, No se encontró evidencia para apoyar el uso de la ivermectina para tratar o prevenir la infección por covid-19, pero la base de la evidencia es limitada. https://t.co/cePMdCIb4M
@NicosBurgers @JonouchiKotaro @CandymanDah @MemphisQuinn My sister was once prescribed vertigo medication for migraines, which was not even an off label use for the medication. So no. No I would not. https://t.co/g4NO9X2K1K
@SpittinVenoms @ceegarciabee @Yeti1181 @pixiejss @MagisterBracey @grahamwalker @GidMK @ydeigin And here's a study from Cochrane - a meta-study actually, in which they studied 14 studies of Ivermectin in clinical use trials. They found absolutely zero effec
RT @Therese38538165: @EdwinRankin When they knew this works https://t.co/Impl8kWMBP
@JariLeino3 @hsfi Näyttö sen hyödyistä on parhaimmillaankin ristiriitaista, joten sitä ei Suomessa käytetä. Lääkkeitähän yleensäkin käytetään niiden virallisten käyttöaiheiden mukaisesti https://t.co/BYureJPqpL
@DHSgov Um..when the cdc says this doesn't work..and our gov says it does..https://t.co/Impl8kWMBP
@bojomomma22 Did I show you this..make sure you show your doctor https://t.co/Impl8kWMBP
@GI_JEDi Tell me https://t.co/Impl8kWMBP
@EdwinRankin When they knew this works https://t.co/Impl8kWMBP
@reindevries76 @adegraat @thierrybaudet Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of IVM used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality.
RT @richeggleston: @RobertHartley77 @deralteGaukler @MsTrixter @richykirsh @mcfunny @tenebra99 @hughriminton @10NewsFirst IVM does not work…
@KwameA009 What happens when the find out this is really the cure https://t.co/Impl8kWMBP
@DrTomFrieden So does: https://t.co/Impl8kWMBP
@katsaptaig @colepram @JarronJackson4 @chernayakoshka @SaraEisen @ScottGottliebMD "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." https://t.co/e8zo
@hea02t @drmikehart Not sure if you guys ever heard of Cochrane. https://t.co/c8EyTPkVwc https://t.co/G6ludl62iP
@pcdebol @local_logophile @LaurieT2021 @ImSpeaking13 You can find studies discrediting those studies from the same source. Face it: ivermectin is unproven, its manufacturers don't want you taking it for covid, people desperate to be contrarian are taking n
@idrissaberkane Il faudra m'expliquer pourquoi je devrais plus me fier à la politique d'un pays trop pauvre (avec un soupçon de corruption pour ne rien gâcher) pour acheter des vaccins, qu'à la revue Cochrane. https://t.co/8xO8mUEUQU
@Arlich12 @Eterr_ @BouchraWilliot L'ivermectine n'a pas fait la preuve de son efficacité dans le traitement contre le Covid. Mais si vous connaissez une étude scientifique sérieuse qui prouve le contraire, je suis preneur. En attendant je préfère me fier à
@Max65752957 @oatila Eu não estou habilitado para validar ou desacreditar esta meta análise, mas não é por haver um paper a apresentar resultados num sentido que tudo o que foi feito antes está errado. Está aqui um que diz o contrário: https://t.co/CwgYWD
RT @TheSGEM: @PierreKory I would put a SRMA of RCTs above a news story of observational data. " Overall, the reliable evidence available…
RT @firewall76: il link parla di 4 anticorpi monoclonali e un immunosoppressore. 3 di quelli citati hanno dimostrato di essere inefficaci i…
@onebetterthanQ @k_b_lvi @pmcox @PierreKory Or you could just look at Cochrane to see that it doesn’t 🤷♀️ https://t.co/2SHc2Dz6fO
RT @BreezerGalway: @onebetterthanQ @k_b_lvi @pmcox @PierreKory Don't work innit https://t.co/TRi0sgYuqm
@onebetterthanQ @k_b_lvi @pmcox @PierreKory Don't work innit https://t.co/TRi0sgYuqm
@rosensteindave8 @NottaBt1 @TravisGarber5 @sfchronicle The efficacy & safety of the use of Ivermectin to treat Covid in humans is, at best, uncertain. Not enough properly conducted studies have been done. Yet there are people who believe it's safer to
@PierreKory I would put a SRMA of RCTs above a news story of observational data. " 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." https
il link parla di 4 anticorpi monoclonali e un immunosoppressore. 3 di quelli citati hanno dimostrato di essere inefficaci i.e. ivermectin https://t.co/JK0pVhf0b5 @prokofiev91 @MedBunker @marco_heffler @AurelianoStingi @ScaltritiLab @nicolatosti1 @neghittos
Want the *facts* on Ivermectin @precordialthump has done the work in an excellent detailed review TL;dr ❌evidence of benefit to Rx #COVID19 ❗️significant toxicity esp with high doses https://t.co/OoVEAgX6nY and the Cochrane review of 14 RCTs 1678 Pts htt
@905cupid @Montork1 @TruthstoSpread @TorontoBantam @KenyonWallace @TorontoStar Most recent one when you look up Ivermectine on that same site. https://t.co/fqIRoDkeXm Meanwhile there are tonnes of things showing the covid vaccines are safe and effective.
@OGSativex @klewis191 @stinkylinky1800 @chris_notcapn The memes not even factual lol, This is a meta analysis done, which says the complete opposite to what the meme says https://t.co/F4Nl9UWsVG
@AnaTheBrown Bilo bi lijepo da bar naucite sta su receptori prije ovakvih tvitova, pa mozda i neku knjigu iz imunologije malo procitati. O uspjesnosti lijecenja Ivermektinom imate ovdje: https://t.co/HnJaRkpAd0
@cherylmackie1 Its never a prophylactic. https://t.co/Xu254IWQ63
@joanna202020 @BreezerGalway @sajidjavid I know because I read the the Cochrane review of clinical studies that concluded there's no evidence of any benefit. https://t.co/2n9MSu9Uqg
@Big_Grum @DyfrigH @HelenYates52 @sajidjavid There are no robust studies which show any efficacy. See this from Cochrane. In the UK it is mainly used for parasitic animal treatments & is not licensed for other use. https://t.co/2SHc2Dz6fO
@piadibenedetto @Cartabellotta Il punto è che, sulla revisione poi gli studi erano di bassa qualità, non privi di bias, errori ecc. Qui c'è la revision di Cochrane che spiega quali studi han preso, quali hanno scartato, quali sono in corso e in osservazion
@Chantal_Rome @KelseyTuoc Looks like that writer's relying on the Kory and Hill meta-analyses, which both include the fraudulent Elgazzar trial. See the Cochrane review that Piper linked for discussion: https://t.co/TE5fLgr3Lw
RT @foppac: @PTroubleshooter @ScottySmash @BitsOfWhitt @abundant_more Popp M, Stegemann M, Metzendorf MI, et al. Ivermectin for preventing…
@Georgekonline @GovCanHealth Because it doesn't work: https://t.co/ltqiNGd1iL
@RonMexico_AF @AmiableQuinn @bungdan @MollyJongFast We also don't know all the side effects and other risks to taking these dosages of ivermectin. https://t.co/oJNznYHIVk
@BangFangFang @drbeen_medical Works perfectly fine for me https://t.co/r3BbXmc025 https://t.co/UICpPn0qAq
@Akcita1 @GidMK Research this https://t.co/Vt7hmxezde
@VoteEarlyNow @conservatyler I rarely get on Twitter & researching is my specialty, thanks nice try though. https://t.co/SNbXBs2oEi
@dinamo1234 @MarcBriggs @JackPosobiec I think this is the gold standard. Cochrane. https://t.co/ggUfhhzk0h