I think it's a technical refutation that people need to be aware of without necessarily understanding the details: the report they are criticising is otherwise going to be used to unjustly muddy the waters about Ivermectin - it's the primary tactic that has been used over the last year - falsely create the impression that the drug isn't as effective as it is or that we aren't as sure as we are about what all the studies are showing...
What you see happening repeatedly is that "meta-analyses" are done, that selectively include/exclude studies - without showing their working as to why particular studies were excluded - so that they can then imply that the data on Ivermectin is less compelling than it is. I think our role in this - as laypeople - is to notice any study, report or media article which is implying that Ivermectin is anything other than phenomenally effective and safe and make sure people are aware that there is a detailed refutation of the report available already.
So in this instance, look out for anyone quoting Roman et al, and make sure they then get directed to the BIRD refutation to understand the serious errors the Roman et all studies contain....
I confess I couldn't easily figure out what they were saying or even if they are pro-Ivermectin or against it.
Some plain language for laymen would be a good idea, I think.
I think it's a technical refutation that people need to be aware of without necessarily understanding the details: the report they are criticising is otherwise going to be used to unjustly muddy the waters about Ivermectin - it's the primary tactic that has been used over the last year - falsely create the impression that the drug isn't as effective as it is or that we aren't as sure as we are about what all the studies are showing...
What you see happening repeatedly is that "meta-analyses" are done, that selectively include/exclude studies - without showing their working as to why particular studies were excluded - so that they can then imply that the data on Ivermectin is less compelling than it is. I think our role in this - as laypeople - is to notice any study, report or media article which is implying that Ivermectin is anything other than phenomenally effective and safe and make sure people are aware that there is a detailed refutation of the report available already.
So in this instance, look out for anyone quoting Roman et al, and make sure they then get directed to the BIRD refutation to understand the serious errors the Roman et all studies contain....