This is not unexpected. If the authors of the retracted ivermectin study claim that the data was not really the data for their paper, they now need to explain: 1. Why did they upload fake data that quite clearly matched their results?https://twitter.com/PierreKory/status/1416080575442587653 …
-
-
6. It is also worth noting that this is not actually a public statement by the authors, but rather a tweet supposedly on their behalf by someone else. I await them actually speaking because it's possible this isn't actually Professor Elgazzar
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm sure they're furiously... um, restoring the original dataset from backups... as we speak
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Shameless people continue to be shameless even after they’re caught. Often works for their audience too.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Where is their real data set?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
From Prof ElGazzar: “I found the Guardian e-mail today in junk mail and I will sue them.” Has he heard of pre-trial discovery?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And how can you upload a dataset to a website where you have to pay to download it, only for it to be (terribly) password protected? I'm not a scientist, but this already sounds fishy
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I've always wondered how these papers pass peer review ? How did Wakefield get past peer review? Does the peer review / science publishing process need reform ?
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.