That's just completely unrelated to the matter at hand
-
-
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
-
That's just the same nonsense as in that weird map, but in a preprint. There's no actual measure of ivermectin use, data quality, etc, just an ecological comparison between some countries that do and don't have endemic parasites
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
It's amazing to me that U & comrades don't require the same level of scrutiny for the mRNA vaccines.U take the companies word for much of the science.Dr Byram Briddle foi'd the
@pfizer rat studies from Japan & was appaled to see how widely disseminated the vax was. But you're
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That's nonsensical and completely off-topic. I do indeed put exactly the same effort into reviewing vaccine studies, but we're talking about ivermectin here
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
However I see nothing about that on your home twitter page, but you have a pinned tweet denigrating Ivermectin.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I have a pinned tweet looking at a single study that appears to have been at least partially fraudulent
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
There are caveats to the methodology, as it is observational, but I cannot see any red flags for scientific fraud. A reasonably good study with some limitations
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
One of the limitations being the study funders, of course. Which brings me to this. Why are you not using your real name on Twitter? You have 3 times as many followers as your institution, so you must be a rock star, but an anonymous one? Why so?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm not anonymous, I link to my Guardian profile on my page. And funding is *not* a limitation, that is to do with systemic bias rather than within-study issues
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.