Dr. Kory Admits Not Understanding What Lack of "Statistical Significance" Means
Basic Statistics 101 Revisited
I re-posted this article because I find it fascinating. Yes, it discusses how Dr. Kory is still delusional about Ivermectin. That's not the part I find most interesting.
What caught my attention was his comment decrying published articles demonstrating that Ivermectin works, it just wasn't statistically significant.
Whoa! Hold the phone.
What did he say?
Ivermectin works but it wasn't statistically significant.
Wow. This is basic, statistics 101. If the difference between the treatment group and placebo group is not statistically significant that means any difference in outcome is more likely due to random probability not due to the treatment
I don't know how anyone can get into medical school, through internship, residency and fellowship and not understand what statistical significance means.
Look we all get fooled sometimes. When you do, you put on your big boy white coat and let it go.
Kory needs to let go of Ivermectin. The stuff just doesn't work. I wish it did.
But a little refresher on stats wouldn't hurt either.
You're completely misrepresenting what Kory wrote, or you don't understand what he wrote. There are many studies that show Ivermectin has a significant impact for treating Covid, but his point is that they cherry pick the ones that for one reason or another show an effect which is not statistically signifcant and ignore the ones that do show a statistically significant effect to intentionally misrepresent reality. A scientific experiment which does not show a statistically significant effect means nothing if there are repeatable experiments that contradict it, which in the case of Ivermectin, there are.