[kobieyc]

Honestly I was surprised not to see any mention of IVM in the original post. Many of the points in the original article apply to what's going on with systemic reviews of IVM - see for example allegations of misconduct/fraud by theguardian to Elgazzar's big IVM study https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-s...

It does also bring into question the validity of Tess Lowrie's systematic review of ivermectin efficacy.

Also, your systematic review [1] includes the Elgazzar as "low risk" of bias... when in fact Elgazzar had GLARING errors.

It also makes me question the competence of everyone involved in this systematic review that they can't find these glaring errors but some random med student can.

[argvargc]

See also Tess Lawrie's response to the Guardian article, that they rated it "unclear" in bias versus low and high, and how the meta analysis is affected if Elgazzar is removed (12 min excerpt):

https://mobile.twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/141654059008...

(Spoiler: not much.)

[rubatuga]

I agree, some of the trials have issues. But if you would like to cherry pick one trial and use that as evidence to the contrary, I will direct the reader to a firehose of ivermectin studies, which the reader can evaluate on their own:

https://ivmmeta.com

You really cannot trust the raw risk estimates that they give on this site. But it's the most comprehensive list of trials for ivermectin there is, and a place for you to form your own opinion. Elgazzar has already been removed as a data point.

[closewith]

> I agree, some of the trials have issues. But if you would like to cherry pick one trial and use that as evidence to the contrary, I will direct the reader to a firehose of ivermectin studies, which the reader can evaluate on their own:

Surely the point of the OP's post is that the reader can't evaluate these studies on their own. At least not without undertaking the kind of review and background research that is not reasonable for even the expert reader.

Not to mention the irony of accusing the GP of cherry-picking when the site you linked is a cherry-picked list of trials curated by anonymous alleged HCWs.

[rubatuga]

First, don't underestimate people's ability to read some papers on Hacker News. It's not that hard. And second, what's wrong with anonymous alleged HCWs? Seems like the intersection of politics and science has gotten out of hand if you ask me. Also, if you could please find me a well-laid out superset of the articles in ivmmeta.com, I will gladly replace the link.

[closewith]

> First, don't underestimate people's ability to read some papers on Hacker News.

The point of the parent article is that it's impossible to assess a paper by reading it. There's no way to, for example, determine that studies on which a paper relies were fictional without further research. Ability doesn't matter - there isn't sufficient information in the paper alone to make an assessment. That is the crux of the crisis.

> And second, what's wrong with anonymous alleged HCWs? Seems like the intersection of politics and science has gotten out of hand if you ask me. Also, if you could please find me a well-laid out superset of the articles in ivmmeta.com, I will gladly replace the link.

It's hard to believe this comment is made in good faith. You yourself insinuated that another poster was cherry-picking, which is exactly what you did in your response. I can only assume you are trolling or otherwise commenting in bad faith?