3/n The authors report that 0% of the people treated with ivermectin+carrageenan got COVID-19, while in the pilot 11% and in the full trial more than 50% of the control group got sick
-
-
14/n For example, the pre-reg reports the study had 72 women in the control arm. Table 1 reports 51 womenpic.twitter.com/xja85XiQam
Show this thread -
15/n The pre-reg has a median age of 42 for the intervention arm. According to table 1, 70% of the intervention arm had an age below 40 years This is impossiblepic.twitter.com/doDsLdWR0u
Show this thread -
16/n Worse still, the graphs from the results contradict the text in the study itself (H/T
@K_Sheldrick) Here the results say that 120/130 people tested positive, but the graph implies that 105/110 people didpic.twitter.com/La08f5HeXy
Show this thread -
17/n (Note: I saw implies, but frankly since the graph is so terrible it technically says that out of a control group of 215 people 105 got infected. I'm being generous and assuming that's not what the authors meant)
Show this thread -
18/n On top of all of this, the numbers from table 1 look very strange. Here's the histogram of numbers, note that six appears 10 times, three numbers appear 7 times, and numbers over six appear only oncepic.twitter.com/l9utp7H64x
Show this thread -
19/n What does this all mean? In essence - this trial is about as untrustworthy as they get. No one should be using it for evidence of anything
Show this thread -
20/n Given that the graphical and written representations of the primary outcome of the study appear to conflict, and the results tables differ between the pre-registration and the publication, it is worth asking whether this study even took place at all
Show this thread -
20.5/n If this study did occur, which record is right - the graphs? The pre-registration? Are none of the numbers correct?
Show this thread -
21/n This adds to the long and growing list of concerns about ivermectin literature. It is extremely worrisome that studies like this have been cited multiple times and referenced as evidence for benefit
Show this thread -
22/n I'm not saying that this research was fraudulent, but what I will say is that I do not see how anyone who read this paper could've cited it as a resource for anything because the issues are...numerous According to Google Scholar, cited 22 times
Show this thread -
23/n update. This is a very bad sign. Authors refusing to communicate and share data is a very common feature of scientific fraud (i.e. Surgisphere)https://twitter.com/K_Sheldrick/status/1421795122291777537?s=19 …
Show this thread -
24/n it is often impossible to know if a study is fraudulent or not, but regardless until the lead author shares anonymised patient data we are forced to treat this study as if it was Hopefully we get the data
Show this thread -
25/n The full story on this paper is now out, and it's extremely concerninghttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1433555208211079171?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.
