One of the advantages of meta-analyses is that they can filter out noise and collect signal, even if there are major problems with the collected studies. Some things cannot be filtered out, such as giving antivirals late. Time is key with antiviral treatment of acute disease.
Parachutes are obvious. Bias is a mole hill compared with the effect of parachutes. We don't need RCTs of parachutes or worry about certainty of evidence.
I'm really not focused on IVM--more on HCQ. Did you look at the Accinelli study yet? I linked it in another comment.
>>These are mole hills. Try to focus on mountains.
Observational studies can be used to determine drug efficacy if the effects are parachute level of benefit, which Accinelli shows in the case of treatment within 72 hours of symptom onset.
You have still failed to produce a single study showing that the Null Hypothesis is conclusive wrt covid treatment within 72 hours, whereas Accinelli showed conclusively that time to treatment within 72 hours mandated rejecting the Null Hypothesis. Do I need to explain this to you?
You have no understanding of evidence. Parachute use isn't based on RCTs. I follow the science, but you follow the incompetent herd and are unable to determine the difference between mountains and mole hills.
You only display your incompetence with this comment.
One of the advantages of meta-analyses is that they can filter out noise and collect signal, even if there are major problems with the collected studies. Some things cannot be filtered out, such as giving antivirals late. Time is key with antiviral treatment of acute disease.
Parachutes are obvious. Bias is a mole hill compared with the effect of parachutes. We don't need RCTs of parachutes or worry about certainty of evidence.
I'm really not focused on IVM--more on HCQ. Did you look at the Accinelli study yet? I linked it in another comment.
1. combo study
2. not RCT
>>These are mole hills. Try to focus on mountains.
Observational studies can be used to determine drug efficacy if the effects are parachute level of benefit, which Accinelli shows in the case of treatment within 72 hours of symptom onset.
You have still failed to produce a single study showing that the Null Hypothesis is conclusive wrt covid treatment within 72 hours, whereas Accinelli showed conclusively that time to treatment within 72 hours mandated rejecting the Null Hypothesis. Do I need to explain this to you?
You have no understanding of evidence. Parachute use isn't based on RCTs. I follow the science, but you follow the incompetent herd and are unable to determine the difference between mountains and mole hills.
Evidence is overwhelming, but you have a problem perceiving it. Have a nice day.