True or False: Meta-analyses correct for faulty individual studies

Primary tabs

Donate to help develop this document

Thank you for your support!

Product reference

Argument map *

Custom nominations	Order
	Custom nominations	Weight for row 1

Editor:

james

#bret-weinstein

#ivermectin

#science

The drug Ivermectin has been touted by some as something of a miracle drug for COVID-19. On the other hand, others have declared the opposite to be the case. (Have you ever seen that dynamic before? Perhaps we're in the middle of an information war...?) There has been some chatter, specifically, around Bret Weinstein who has made some controversial assertions on his Dark Horse Podcast. There have been videos taken down by social media networks. At least one of his video podcasts was taken down and a video on the subject of ivermectin from Rebel Wisdom was also taken down by YouTube.

The crux of the argument in favor of ivermectin resides with a meta-analysis of the studies on the effectiveness of the drug in preventing or treating COVID-19. It's within this context that Weinstein made an assertion about the value of meta-analyses in general, relative to randomized controlled trials.

There is one specific claim made by Bret Weinstein which has been contradicted by at least three medical doctors. Here is the tweet which contains the claim:

Those who argue that large scale randomized controlled trials are the only reliable evidence in evidence based medicine have misled you. Now you can see why—large RCTs amplify systematic error in addition to signal, whereas meta-analysis amplifies signal, and corrects for error.
— Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) July 16, 2021

The three medical doctors I have found who have contradicted this claim are: Graham Walker, David Gorski, and William Paolo. The details and source documents which contain their contradictions are included in the "con" references to the claim of this argument map.