4/n Secondly, the study type has changed. The preprint claimed to be "randomized", the published study identifies itself as an observational trialpic.twitter.com/Rtoq9lb2AN
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
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 
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)
17/n As a randomized study that was retracted from SSRN after being rejected from the Lancet, it is pretty problematic that the preprint isn't mentioned at all in the published work, and that the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
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 …
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.