https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1416290819565244424?s=20
I'm no statistician, and am left rather unsure what to think.
The problem with all research at the moment is it's moving so fast and it's not peer reviewed. Luckily, Ivermectin carries very little risks, is well studied and has minimal drug interactions (and is cheap @ ~$1 per pill).
https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1122/ivermectin-oral/deta...
For anyone interested, there's a database of papers and results: https://c19early.com/
I recommend actually diving into the papers, many are not very good, but that's the nature of the research all around (drugs, vaccine, covid19, etc) at the moment.
https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin-for-covid-19-based-on...
"There’s no benefit seen whatsoever for people who have severe COVID-19, and the confidence intervals for people with mild and moderate disease become extremely wide."
Later there's another section in the blog post - but it's not that he removes a second paper. Since it's supposed to be a meta-analysis of all the available studies, "If you include another study that was published after the Bryant meta-analysis came out, which found no benefit for ivermectin on death, the benefits seen in the model entirely disappear."
He writes more about it here. The Elgazzar paper were cited in 30 other papers.
https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin-for-covid-19-based-on...
All the members of the research team are associated with a British pro-invermectin organization and the money for the research was raised by a Gofundme campaign headlined "Help us get a life-saving drug approved for COVID-19."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/column-ivermectin-a...
The Times also points out that Elgazzar's dubious data "was not peer-reviewed before publication, so it probably should never have been incorporated in the meta-analysis at all."
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-hea...