Yup. What an incompetent know-it-all. Not nerdy at all. @GidMK’s *continuing* to ignore the info at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04668469 … is inexcusable.
-
-
This tweet aged like milk.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Clearly, the argument given against Elgazzar at this time were irrelevant. But since I accessed to the raw data, and it is clearly fake.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Elgazzar claims the raw data that is being alleged to be his, is not his data, so yes, it's fake, but whose fault that is is TBD.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Did he provide more detailed explanations ? The raw data was linked directly in the version 4 of the article on research square.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
He has not said anything other than it is not his data as far as I'm aware, which of course begs the question of why you'd upload fake data that nevertheless matches your study very closely and call it your data
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Well, if the data was provided externally, it still could have been possible, but since it was linked in the article, this seems particularly unlikely.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Now GMK accuses Elgazzar of doing what GMK’s tool apparently did. Blah blah blah “as far as I am aware,” GMK claims, feigning authority. Well, Meyerowitz-Katz hasn’t stopped beating his wife, as far as I’m aware, either. Or the dirty debate tricks, so I reused that one on him.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JesusOnSkates @lebon80 and
The paper linked to some weird site with a paywall, not even a direct link, let alone journal-hosed. And GMK’s tool posted different data on a yet another site. No more detailed explanation is needed; either the data file has the same checksum or it’s fake.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I used the link provided in the Elgazzar article. I paid to get directly the data from the link, and this data is fake. Of course it could be an insider's sabotage, if Elgazzar provided explanations, I am interested.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
What makes that unlikely is how closely the data matches the reported results. It's not identical, but it's very close, so if it was sabotage then they faked data that almost perfectly matched the trial in a very time intensive way
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.