6/n The journal itself looks...less than reputable - there's only 1 "issue", 7 papers total, and one paper published online in August 2020 is still "in press" Also, just look at the "about us" page!pic.twitter.com/jnYjjgX8G6
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
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)
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
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
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
20.5/n If this study did occur, which record is right - the graphs? The pre-registration? Are none of the numbers correct?
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
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
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 …
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 
25/n The full story on this paper is now out, and it's extremely concerninghttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1433555208211079171?s=20 …
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.