Today's paper that I'm checking is not ivermectin, another treatment for COVID-19, and thus far every single percentage I've looked at in every table is impossible Cited 18 times so far
-
-
They also use a different impossible number between the table and the narrativepic.twitter.com/AdF6cWdMVP
-
I noticed even if you play with different N numbers above and below 44 and 43, none of them line up with those specific values listed.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There is something else that struck me... How in the heck did they get "pre-COVID" data for CSR, ESR??? I did look at the recruitment chain and there isn't any way they have that honestly. Outside of imperfectly 'perfect' numbers there's some other oddities. What am I missing?
-
Tell me more - why is this weird
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The sample size is too small. The effect measures error bars overlap. It is not a good study.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They don’t even know how to lie with numbers…
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How did it even get through peer-review? Wouldn't a peer-reviewer check those kind of things?
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.