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 …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Isn’t this one of those forest through trees scenarios? Being completely dialed into this single study when there’s a growing body of broad data pointing to its benefit feels like a distraction. Imagine both sides worked together more formally to root out what is ivermectins deal
-
Not if so much of the forest consists of this one single tree.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is really bizarre.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
According to
@MelissaLDavey's article "Lawrence and the Guardian sent Elgazzar a comprehensive list of questions about the data, but did not receive a reply." Not clear if he declined to respond, didn't have time, didn't get the email...Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I’m picturing some poor intern somewhere furiously pounding the space bar hundreds of times trying to get the « real » data aligned properly in the spreadsheet.
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.
