For those interested, the number of very likely fraudulent ivermectin studies showing a huge benefit has shot up from 1 a few weeks ago to 5 now
I suspect there's more to come 
-
-
But the broader message here is that *all* of these potential frauds were so low-quality that no one should've ever used them as evidence. They were, at face-value, woeful
Show this thread -
Also, it should not have been a group of unpaid randoms working on this in their spare time, why aren't the ivermectin crowd critically appraising their own studies and CHECKING THIS STUFF?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"the other two were still working on" = if we try hard enough we'll eventually find a flaw somewhere to discredit it. It's just a shame that you and your super sleuths weren't in a hurry to find all the flaws in remdesivir before the world went ahead and spent billions on it.
-
No. If a study is sound, it is sound. If it is fraudulent, it is fraudulent.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I need careful a careful analysis of each faulty study, laying out the flaws in terms that lay readers can understand. If I have those, I can better help counter misinformation in a fairly large readership (not mine).
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.