Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door vlijmscherp
|
Uit het
Guardian artikel:
Citaat:
Meyerowitz-Katz told the Guardian that “this is one of the biggest ivermectin studies out there”, and it appeared to him the data was “just totally faked”. This was concerning because two meta-analyses of ivermectin for treating Covid-19 had included the Elgazzar study in the results. A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies to determine what the overall scientific literature has found about a treatment or intervention.
“Because the Elgazzar study is so large, and so massively positive – showing a 90% reduction in mortality – it hugely skews the evidence in favour of ivermectin,” Meyerowitz-Katz said.
“If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.”
|
Wat ze daar schrijven is klinkklare onzin.
In
haar recent gesprek met Bret Weinstein toont Tess Lawrie wat er gebeurt met de resultaten van haar meta-analyse wanneer ze de Elgazzar studie eruit weghaalt.
Met Elgazzar:
Zonder Elgazzar:
Grosso modo verandert er eigenlijk niets.
De Elgazzar studie is nooit verschenen in een
peer reviewed tijdschrift.
Op ivmmeta.com vind je de huidige stand van zaken op het vlak van (o.a.)
peer reviewed studies:
