[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.