Another day, another two ivermectin studies that have impossible values in their tables of results. Both included in meta-analyses (rated as high risk of bias this time) This is getting truly insane
-
-
Endless examples of RCTs where the analysis plan is a single sentence long (we did chi-squared and some t-tests, p<0.05 was significant)
Show this thread -
And these are just the SURFACE issues. The deeper stuff is even more wild - some of these trials almost certainly have missing data that they didn't report, and others may never have happened at all
Show this thread -
How has this been missed, over and over again, by serious researchers? Many of these studies are included in meta-analyses. Most of them are cited more than a dozen times. And they are either totally woeful or potentially fraud
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes! An MD sent me a link to a site with >370 HCQ studies. But the problem is, most weren't even HCQ studies. Some were retracted, others mouse studies, or morbidity studies. I was like, "Where are they getting all this data from in these fancy charts?!"
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.