| On the one hand, you've made a rebuttal, quoting the paper. That's good. On the other hand, you've utterly failed to understand what I'm attempting to say. So that's less good. > The data you're referencing is too small to be statistically significant. I explicitly acknowledge this. >> So on the one hand I completely agree with you on the necessity of having enough people to dodge the problem of random chance. "the law of large numbers" on Wikipedia is good. That's the acknowledgement. >> But that does kind of hint that there might be something there. And here's where I'm saying "if you have these three metrics which are independently all non-significant but they're all trending in the same direction, there might be a 'there' there" Maybe I didn't say it clearly enough to begin with. I'm not alleging that Ivermectin is COVID Jesus and we all just gotta believe in him in order to be saved. I'm just trying to point out that the data previously quoted should probably get a person's "huh, what's that about?" sense going. |