Remember this problematic study from February?
After questions were raised about the paper, it was pulled by the Lancet and disappeared off the preprint server it was on
This week IT WAS PUBLISHED 
1/nhttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1361063430745022467 …
-
-
10/n Now, it's a bit weird to exclude people who've taken vitamin D supplements 3 months ago from this sample anyway - most of the people were deficient in vitamin D despite the supplements - but there's also more that's strange here
Show this thread -
11/n For one thing, even though people have been EXCLUDED from the trial, the control group has...increased? 379 in the preprint, 391 in the publicationpic.twitter.com/HRwuUjeP5Z
Show this thread -
12/n This is not explained - the only thing mentioned is that 92 people were excluded ~prior to the trial~ Were people moved from treatment to control? How does that happen in a prospective cohort study?pic.twitter.com/zhmbGrsZhq
Show this thread -
13/n Table 1 also has some mistakes. For example, the obesity numbers and percentages have been copied in wrongpic.twitter.com/E04Q7JY91Q
Show this thread -
14/n The figures in Table 1 are also just a bit...odd? 20% diabetes, 30% dyslipidemia, but only 9% of people with BMI>30? Are those obesity values just an error perhaps?
Show this thread -
15/n There are also tons of strange small differences between the preprint and the published study. 80/379 died in the control group in the preprint, but 82/391 died in the publication None of this is explained
Show this thread -
16/n At this point I just honestly don't know what to make of the research. As an observational study, it's not very meaningful (if nothing else, there's no control for or discussion of how patients were allocated to the wards)
Show this thread -
17/n As a randomized study that was retracted from SSRN after being rejected from the Lancet, it is pretty problematic that the preprint isn't mentioned at all in the published work, and that the differences aren't really explained
Show this thread -
18/n If anyone was wondering, this study is being touted as proof that vitamin D is a miracle cure for COVID-19 despite the innumerable weaknesses, because of course it is!https://twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1402320259626016772?s=20 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.