12/n So all that's bad. As far as interventional observational trials go, this is probably the worst one I've ever seen. When the authors don't even report how they divided people into intervention and control, that's not a good sign!
-
-
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 -
-
-
What the hell is going on with these Ivermectin studies?
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.
