11/n It's certainly what the authors uploaded, and in many ways matches their results, but it is also inconsistent in some other ways that make the whole thing extraordinarily confusing
-
-
21/n The pretty obvious issue we now have is that this study is clearly filled with problems, yet it's been included in meta-analyses that considered it to be a piece of top-quality research
Show this thread -
22/n At the absolute minimum, studies including this paper should revise their main analysis to exclude it until we have a reasonable explanation for all these issues
Show this thread -
23/n But we're left with the depressing realization that somehow EVERYONE MISSED THIS I reviewed the study. While I noted concerns with the way it was reported, I never even checked to see if it was fraud
Show this thread -
24/n How can it be that a study this problematic was used as evidence to treat 1,000s of people since November 2020, and no one noticed? No one cared?
Show this thread -
25/n Anyway, the TL:DR is that the largest study to date of ivermectin for COVID-19, which found a HUGE benefit for the drug, has just been retracted amid very serious concerns about plagiarism and fraud This will echo in the scientific community for years to come
Show this thread -
26/n While it is still certainly possible that ivermectin works for COVID-19, this has made a huge dent in that possibility. I await the large studies that are currently being conducted, because we really have no good evidence to rely on
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Which study is the table on the left from?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
