l33tminion: (Default)
Sam ([personal profile] l33tminion) wrote2021-11-24 07:11 pm
Entry tags:

No Fluke

This is from last week, but I really wanted to post about it: Scott Alexander did a fantastic deep dive into meta-analysis of studies of the COVID-miracle-cure du jour, ivermectin. There's a family of very professional looking websites publishing meta-analyses of alternative COVID treatments that make it seem like ivermectin is a wildly effective COVID-19 treatment. But also everything else. Prompting the obvious suspicion that they've forgotten that publication bias is a thing, or are using statistical methods that make everything seem like a success. The whole thing is fascinating, but the surprise conclusion is that the big confounding variable seems to be the should-have-been-obvious one, given the straight-forward question of "why would you expect an anti-parasitic to help with COVID-19?"

(He also did a follow-up post that takes a serious look at the question of "why not just take everything that might work?")

Post a comment in response:

(will be screened)
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org