Homeopathy is The One Quackery To Rule Them All. Why, then, can homeopaths seemingly cite so many “positive” randomized clinical trials to support it?
Tag: meta-analysis
Ivermectin has been hyped without good evidence as a highly effective treatment for COVID-19. Yesterday it was reported that the main study that has driven positive meta-analyses was either fraudulent or so incompetent as to be meaningless. Bottom line: Ivermectin almost certainly doesn’t work.
The other day, I discussed why ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine:, basically a “miracle cure” that isn’t. The FLCCC, a group of COVID-19 “brave maverick doctors,” brings the conspiracies.
The claim that medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the US has always rested on very shaky evidence; yet it has become common wisdom that is cited as though everyone accepts it. But if estimates of 250,000 to 400,000 deaths due to medical error are way too high, what is the real number? A recently published study suggests that it’s almost certainly a lot lower.
Meta-analyses can sometimes suffer from the “GIGO problem” (garbage in, garbage out). The publication of a “crappy” acupuncture “network meta-analysis” for acupuncture and chronic constipation illustrates the GIGO problem on steroids a.nd reveals a problem with peer review at PLOS ONE, where it was published