@ShannonFalls3 "Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19" https://t.co/TGgsXwgI4E
RT @MaxKennerly: okay but "horse dewormer" is one of ivermectin's approved, widely-accepted uses "COVID treatment" is not an approved, wid…
RT @MaxKennerly: okay but "horse dewormer" is one of ivermectin's approved, widely-accepted uses "COVID treatment" is not an approved, wid…
RT @MaxKennerly: okay but "horse dewormer" is one of ivermectin's approved, widely-accepted uses "COVID treatment" is not an approved, wid…
RT @MaxKennerly: okay but "horse dewormer" is one of ivermectin's approved, widely-accepted uses "COVID treatment" is not an approved, wid…
RT @MaxKennerly: okay but "horse dewormer" is one of ivermectin's approved, widely-accepted uses "COVID treatment" is not an approved, wid…
RT @MaxKennerly: okay but "horse dewormer" is one of ivermectin's approved, widely-accepted uses "COVID treatment" is not an approved, wid…
RT @MaxKennerly: okay but "horse dewormer" is one of ivermectin's approved, widely-accepted uses "COVID treatment" is not an approved, wid…
okay but "horse dewormer" is one of ivermectin's approved, widely-accepted uses "COVID treatment" is not an approved, widely-accepted use of ivermectin, it's an experimental use with dismal evidence behind it: https://t.co/pNf8xendbr https://t.co/wF9op5SR
A major meta-analysis on #Ivermectin found its efficacy is a big fat MAYBE. Paring down the available research, very few studies had designs which allow valid comparisons. Almost none of the pooled estimates are statistically significant @DrTomFrieden htt
L'ivermectine déchaine les passions...Deux trucs. 1) La plus récente méta-analyse Cochrane conclut que le niveau de preuve est faible et qu'il faut en savoir plus https://t.co/TeBiy6KAgg
@xboominator @SocialistStrike @fabucat @Sfdog60 @natscloset Not sure about those numbers - this is a meta-analysis that shows no benefit compared to no treatment. But there are other studies w/different results. I do agree, it’s not right to just dismiss
@getbusy5 @__________siah_ @sweetkhaddi @MollyJongFast Here is link to a study of the ivermectin studies vs COVID done thus far . "Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19" https:/
@Dahuuu @DrAndrewHill Really. This is what happens when you filter for quality of studies. https://t.co/Isi672clqJ
RT @RayTaylorUK: @profnfenton Sadly the positive meta-analyses include many low quality studies, open label, which good medical researchers…
RT @_wunderwood_: @davidwebbshow @ProjectLincoln https://t.co/Tn4zBv1d60 Another article from the same site researching multiple studies c…
@robsak72 @clbolt So let's get this straight, your group got a local digital paper that probably doesn't even have more than one or two staff to publish their link piece on ivermectine. This is a warning sign of snake oil being sold. https://t.co/4Ql4Hd3J
RT @RayTaylorUK: @profnfenton Sadly the positive meta-analyses include many low quality studies, open label, which good medical researchers…
RT @CochraneJapan: イベルメクチンの効果を見たコクランレビューが出版されました。現段階のエビデンスからは、COVID-19患者の入院・外来治療、およびハイリスク曝露後の感染予防に使用されるイベルメクチンの有効性と安全性については不確実と結論付けられました。…
@yungjesussammy @JonesinForTruth @Grief_Eater @lpky a systematic review showing no certainty regarding Iveruse against C19, i.e. you can't claim it does not work yet, larger studies are still being carried out while cultish people screech "h0RsE dEWoRmeR"
@melillo_randy @Mediaite Are you sure? https://t.co/FTiGsAHBa0
@BruceWhitaker14 @Mediaite Are you sure Doc? https://t.co/FTiGsAHBa0
@janet444 @Mediaite You are incorrect, a quick search proves it. https://t.co/FTiGsAHBa0
@Robert__Beltran @Mediaite It's a shame you have such a weak mind. https://t.co/FTiGsAHBa0
@profnfenton Sadly the positive meta-analyses include many low quality studies, open label, which good medical researchers would see through. Garbage in, garbage out. This is a robust, quality review: https://t.co/93ZY5qJigk
@WIRED Funny how writers at WIRED haven't figured out how to use search engines: https://t.co/FTiGsAHBa0
@raiden_nugyen @warbearwojtek @Timcast There’s overwhelmingly evidence it’s not? https://t.co/zh5L5iTiL9
@thehill Read more America, the media is misleading you. https://t.co/FTiGsAHBa0
@ItsComp37327177 @thehill @joerogan You should read more: https://t.co/FTiGsAHBa0
RT @CochraneJapan: イベルメクチンの効果を見たコクランレビューが出版されました。現段階のエビデンスからは、COVID-19患者の入院・外来治療、およびハイリスク曝露後の感染予防に使用されるイベルメクチンの有効性と安全性については不確実と結論付けられました。…
@hairdyelover @DuerksenKen @scottie2h0ttie @2017_nonsense @kenklippenstein It was found to have “anti-viral” properties at 100x the recommended dose, but also can be fatal at this amount lol. Also, collects in the lungs. Found a site that analyzes the few
RT @CochraneJapan: イベルメクチンの効果を見たコクランレビューが出版されました。現段階のエビデンスからは、COVID-19患者の入院・外来治療、およびハイリスク曝露後の感染予防に使用されるイベルメクチンの有効性と安全性については不確実と結論付けられました。…
@SenMikeShirkey Here. Try this one. https://t.co/6FbJjslIUo
@Telemachanic @KristiLeighTV @RollingStone It hasn’t been shown to have an effect. There are better studies underway, which should provide confirmation one way or the other on efficacy. https://t.co/0Up27r2qRh
@WR4NYGov @marc_benton @SophistUnpaid @GCustom @Kristennetten @WholeMarsBlog Sure! Here is another. I can continue for a while. Plus more are coming out each week. https://t.co/C4zq2l6FZp
@ConspiracyCen @RawiriJames @HiDearZaki2 Show even one that says that it helps with Covid 😂 https://t.co/Fp9RSrTci1
@thekublakhan @cellblockh @MatBrnstein @cawleym1 @greg_travis @parsonsfolly Tee hee, IVM you say? You do know it has yet to be shown to be either safe or efficacious? https://t.co/TRi0sgYuqm
RT @jgann111: @brandondarby “Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of iv…
@Mydoglucky2 @baotong1932 香港医学界对伊维菌素的研究成果表明这东西只能用于给动物外用除寄生虫。放心啦这病毒不可怕,反疫苗人士最好自己去感染一下,并传给家人,这样可以有机会中奖早点去见上帝。https://t.co/NvGRxRSAS5
@SenMikeShirkey This is called a “gish gallop” - overwhelming with low quality evidence. Most of these studies are either weak, fraudulent, or aren’t even positive! This is why a proper systematic review or meta-analysis is important. And when we do thos
@RetomT @ErnestetBart @GG_RMC @Drmartyufml En voilà une etude serieuse, et meme si elle est encore en cours, on voit bien les resultats https://t.co/UDdS47ECte
#Ivermectin - Cochrane analysis: "Based on the current very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy & safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID‐19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high qualit
@kebaili_salima 14 études faites (non probantes) avec un niveau d épreuve très faible à faible 31 tjrs en cours. Si on avait un médicament miracle, on l’utiliserait. https://t.co/nKQSYfMOlb https://t.co/3igppoh6iW
@UnitedAusParty Anyone believing this dirtbag should read any of the following published journals: https://t.co/MxamijI5GI https://t.co/JiN4zWzC8r... https://t.co/RjH2aMfGxO https://t.co/yUx2YRA7mm
@CraigKellyMP Anyone believing this dirtbag should read any of the following published journals: https://t.co/MxamijI5GI https://t.co/31clA0CvHV https://t.co/RjH2aMfGxO https://t.co/yUx2YRA7mm
RT @betbrett: @PierreKory No there aren’t. Meta analysis is the top in literature reviews. And Cochrane is the gold standard of meta analys…
@DChappelli @jkass99 https://t.co/tsxyIWdRDf There is no reliable evidence of benefit in covid patients for prevention of therapy. Yes it kills the virus in a petri dish and it is great for worms though.
@Bomboleriot @philippeherlin Et on a immanquablement un troll qui vient pousser cette fake meta dont on ne connaît même pas les auteurs... Mieux vaut aller voir chez Cochrane.. https://t.co/ELuQBGuniW
@joedieseldodge @francesca6365 @jkenney Vaccines work: https://t.co/eO6ZYNo9YU Masks Work: https://t.co/jxSgRBHci6 Being unvaccinated, unmasked and taking Ivermectin DOESN’T work. https://t.co/Qo10aP5txq https://t.co/yXXvIX3WCs
@LinnOchaco @Gfunk1369 @Ruhroe @zachzachzach If "all options" includes anything that has not been shown to help people with Covid, that's a pretty fucking long list. Here's a meta-analysis for you that only includes randomized, controlled studies with pu
Ce que vous dites est ... FAUX ! Allez vous renseigner : il y a des infos positives, TRÈS positives sur l’IVERMECTIN dans TOUS LES PAYS ! Retirez-vous les doigts des oreilles‼️🤨🙄
@nathanfry21 @davidstachon @djfxonitg @cenkuygur @jimmy_dore New meta-analysis according to NIH in July says "Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed rand
@sjkrsjkr @petergarber5 @PierreKory Why? No self respecting physician that follows reliable science prescribes IVM. https://t.co/9GewwUdDq7
@PeterSticks_ @petergarber5 @PierreKory Clinical observation is near the bottom of reliable evidence. Pure anecdotal accounts by laymen possibly being the only thing less reliable. Cochrane on the other hand is the gold standard of review. https://t.co/9Ge
@petergarber5 @PierreKory And still ge continues to dig deeper. Cochrane is the gold standard. They found confidence if IVM makes patients better or worse. https://t.co/9GewwUdDq7
@PierreKory No there aren’t. Meta analysis is the top in literature reviews. And Cochrane is the gold standard of meta analysis. A review of the studies can’t show whether IVM makes things better or worse! 😳 https://t.co/9GewwUdDq7
@bigdave_006 @Divotz2 @DrDenaGrayson https://t.co/8ajuIZNCKl same website says it’s not proven effective
📰Read the systematic review by the Cochrane library mentioned in the article: https://t.co/jWnQ5S9xhU
@libertyfarmer4u @rangermonk1 And the NIH https://t.co/plYzGtbahu
@rob_buechner @cenkuygur @jimmy_dore Wrong!!! From the study you seem to be referring to. “we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19.” https://t.co/ClFUZAAU5w
@Glen17073628 @ABCFactCheck Disappointingly, they’re not. This is the medical gold standard, and it concludes that the evidence just isn’t there. There’s a plain-language summary if you scroll down https://t.co/bNLPmnSanR
"...different definitions of outcomes or outcomes assessment times, and different interpretations of the certainty of evidence." https://t.co/sjcffTs71k
RT @RaquelBlascoR: 🤔De verdad, de verdad, te tomas #Ivermectina (revisión exhaustiva d la evidencia disponible. Conclusión ➡️NO existe evid…
@msjtx2020 @DannyGilbert5 @StammTimothy @jameshamblin @Damon_TransBoy Here is an actual study. You will notice it does not say "absolutely no benefit". Instead it says "Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the ef
@AnLa18294437 https://t.co/drXqMCoHfN Also, gegen Würmer hilft es ziemlich gut ….
@thomasfassino @maddow If you click on the link you provided, you will find a link to the Cochran review of multiple ivermectin studies. https://t.co/ABycWFkbiq https://t.co/Q1Z1tdEXPo
In honor of Joe Rogan using a 'horse dewormer' here's the studies showing the Nobel prize winning safe treatment that apparently isn't for people surely isn't effective against covid. https://t.co/OoZCr1n8zz
@DeViL3O3 @zeldasmith2525 @BeachCity55 @leslieolds98 Unfortunately most of the studies so far have been very low quality and don't tell us anything. Only six double blind controlled studies and they have not produced evidence of any benefit. https://t.co/q
Saw someone trying to use this """study""" as evidence that horse paste is effective against covid. This is a single unpublished, not peer reviewed META ANALYSIS that they drew their own conclusions that it MAY be effective. In other words, untrustworthy
@Samsee_xx @KingRiptor @CXLF2 @NanInKansas @jeek I completely understand what antiviral means. And how do you think I located the manufacturer, genius? If you won't take their word then try some medical studies - also found via Google https://t.co/YbBjkki8
@SOMEGUY7879 @mezzozydeco Thats weird. I had to go find the OG tweet and clock on his link. (https://t.co/cxm7guiBQC) whereas if you search "pubmed . Gov Ivermectin" on Google, this page pops up, where I screen grabbed the sentence from 'authors conclusion
@Nespliss2 @Reisendenn @LCP @olivierveran Une meta analyse ça ira ? https://t.co/C2yFvQA4pU
I’ve already read this. Animal studies aren’t proof it works in humans to combat Covid. It’s purely speculative that it does. https://t.co/vOxSCmsgdS “Overall the reliable evidence does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of Covi
https://t.co/oAcmMtpuKt “Overall the reliable evidence does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of Covid-19.” The evidence it does is flimsy at best best on “very low to low-level certainty evidence.” That basically amounts to no evidence at al
@FrayJosepho @BertaGDeVega Por si alguien me dice… en qué te basas. Pues en esto. Una revisión de 2021. De sistema de base de datos Cochrane…https://t.co/M0griLdx1G
@Christi66838162 @MacKurtj No they didn't: https://t.co/TRi0sgYuqm
@yodelodwho @US_FDA The outcomes were meh. https://t.co/k45ssRAqIh
@kenjaques @JoanieOC @bruce_y_lee @DeNovo_Fatima @shazmamithani @StanKutcher @cochranecollab Thx for sharing. Not discrediting IVM. My position is I’m not convinced it works not that it doesn’t work. Therefore, I accept the null. My position aligns with Co
@ThomasHoufek This is a pretty interesting study of studies. They reviewed every study they could find on ivermectin. They found bias in a large percentage, and flawed procedures in others. Overall, there was nothing determinate on whether it’s helpful or