[lolspace]

> This is from ivmmeta.com, part of a sprawling empire of big professional-looking sites promoting unorthodox coronavirus treatments. I have no idea who runs it - they’ve very reasonably kept their identity secret

Why are they hiding their identity? That means that it can be anyone who does this.

-----------------

But even more important. The website also claims that each of the following individual medicines works:

Fluvoxamine

Proxalutamide

Iota-carrageenan

Molnupiravir

Quercetin

Povidone-Iodine

Curcumim

Casirivimab

Sotrovimab

Bamlanivimab

Nitazoxanide

Budesonide

Zinc

Bromhexine

Colchicine

Vitamin D

Aspirin

Favipiravir

Hydroxychloroquine

Remdesivir

Vitamin C

I find it unlikely that all those claims are true which in turn makes me question their scientific approach.

[WithinReason]

The problem is likely to be with the scientific approach of the studies included (they are not filtered) than the meta-analysis itself.

[shkkmo]

The article points out several ways that ivmmeta's meta-analysis may be flawed:

> Meyerowitz-Katz accuses ivmmeta of cherry-picking what statistic to use for their forest plot. That is, if a study measures ten outcomes, they sometimes take the most pro-ivermectin outcome.

> (how come I’m finding a bunch of things on the edge of significance, but the original ivmmeta site found a lot of extremely significant things? Because they combined ratios, such that “one death in placebo, zero in ivermectin” looked like a nigh-infinite benefit for ivermectin, whereas I’m combining raw numbers.

Given that there is a lot of complexity and debate on how to integrate studies with disparate primary outcomesbane measures, the fault may indeed lie with the ivmmeta analysis methodology.