This is a public peer review of Scott Alexander’s essay on ivermectin, of which this is the seventh part. You can find an index containing all the articles in this series here. For this installment, I’ll focus on how Scott addresses (or doesn’t) the twin issues of trial design and statistical power.
THANK YOU for tackling Scott's smear piece on ivermectin, Alexandros. I only learned about it myself when a commenter at The Burning Platform version (https://www.theburningplatform.com/2022/07/24/letter-to-alex-berenson-on-world-ivermectin-day/comment-page-1/) of my "Letter to Alex Berenson on World Ivermectin Day" (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-alex-berenson-on-world) shared a link to Scott's article, stating, "Deep research assessment by Scott Alexander which suggests the author of this piece has her head firmly up her ass. Her credibility just dropped to nil."
Also, I wanted to let you know the link you have for part two says it is private, so I cannot view the article. I would like to share this series in response to that commenter but want to get the correct link first. Thanks, Alexandros!
I generally don't like talking about motives either; but I agree calling out unitaid is the right thing to do. Likely the deafening silence will continue, and there is little legal basis for taking action against them, if any. But if I was science czar id seek to have their organization permanently blacklisted from my country. Not out of concern for IVM; but out of a general concern for scientific ethics. People talk a lot about the potential for money to have implicit influences on science; but I do not recall ever hearing of something so brazen as this affair involving unitaid. The way things are going, people are going to start thinking that you disclose your funding sources not for an implicit risk of bias, but that funding sources literally dictating conclusions is infact 'the new normal'.
Hi Alexandros, great article yet again.
What do you make of the recent Cochrane review that concludes the same as the first ie Ivermectin doesn’t work against Covid?
Scott Alexander (as he prefers to be called in his internet writing) consistently refers to "insignificant" results. In reading hundreds of scientific papers, I have never seen that word used to indicate that the data cannot reject the null hypothesis of no effect. The correct and universally used term is "non-significant." I consider SA's changing the terminology as another rhetorical trick intended to dismiss the trial even if it shows indications of an effect, as for example a non-significant dose response effect.
When Alexandros publishes, I read.
I just wish he, or someone else, woild look at Ivermectin use worldwide and the scientific versus political merits. There is so much media obfuscation that prevents access to reliable data.
"Well, this took a strange turn towards the conspiratorial"
This whole pandemic has been full of scientists, public health agencies, and the media deliberately and consciously misleading the public. It's not that strange.
Thank you, Alexandros. Your analyses are brilliant, appreciated, and very important to shed light on this fraud‼️