1. These studies have gotten HUGE attention. This is a massive career boost, especially for people who have never before published a clinical trial (which is at least 2 of the likely frauds)
-
-
Show this thread
-
2. Belief. Some of the authors we've spoken to appear to earnestly, deeply believe ivermectin works. I can see how that might drive someone to disbelieve their own research evidence
Show this thread -
(Whether this would drive them to entirely make up studies is obviously questionable, but it's still an interesting point. Most of the fake studies seem to have come from true believers)
Show this thread -
3. Anti-establishment sentiment. There does appear to be a deep well of distrust of authority for all of the people who have published really shoddy research on ivermectin, which is fascinating
Show this thread -
The one explanation I don't think is likely at all is monetary. There's no vast conspiracy here, no weird connection, it is just a bunch of really terrible research that no one should've ever used as evidence
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The author of the original French study of HCL has been pushed out. He controlled the journals that gave favorable reviews of his studies.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/19/french-scientist-who-pushed-unproven-covid-drug-hydroxychloroquine-may-be-forced-from-post …
-
This is real fake news. Pr. Raoult is 69 years old and has the legal age for retirement. He would like to continue, but because he did what every doctor should do = treat his patients, he will probably not be allowed to continue. Luckily his staff has the same opinion.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
There's some sophisticated analysis of the relevant points.
End of conversation
-
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.