This study is a common citation of ivermectin believers, has been reported widely, and I think is a great teaching tool in how little effort it takes to be critical about research findings 1/npic.twitter.com/YDZNB1JP5R
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
5/n One of the first things I do when I read randomized trials like this is look at their pre-registration. This is basically what the authors SAID they would do registered BEFORE they did it Here's the pre-reg for this trial:https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04429711?term=NCT04429711&draw=2&rank=1 …
6/n Immediately on looking at the pre-registration, there is a HUGE discrepancy with the published results Here's what the authors pre-registered as their exclusion and the flow chart from the study. Notice the difference?pic.twitter.com/eMFPtwG9Y6
7/n It appears that the authors have added an extra exclusion criteria that is applied AFTER randomization and treatment. This is "tested Ct>35" in the first two testspic.twitter.com/V5ZfCZWhv7
8/n Based on the protocol, that implies the sequence of events went like this: 1. patient tests positive, randomized and started treatment 2. Day 2, patient tests Ct>35 3. Day 4, patient tests Ct>35
9/n This is an issue for two reasons - firstly, it's not what the authors said they'd do. Secondly, it means that they are excluding people WHO MEET THEIR PRIMARY OUTCOME (i.e. Ct>30) after randomization and treatment has started
10/n This makes absolutely no sense to me. These people were randomized and treated, and they met the inclusion criteria pre-registered by the authors. Why were they excluded?
11/n If you add these people back in, the results of the study entirely lose their significance At day 10, this would be 87% of the ivm and 77% of the control reaching the primary endpoint, p=0.16pic.twitter.com/UjgaGpjYFw
12/n In addition, the authors pre-registered 3 primary outcomes. I can only see one (viral clearance) properly assessed in the paper (shedding is somewhat assessed, but it looks like they didn't get enough samples to statistically analyse this)pic.twitter.com/wv4hnBhNNE
13/n Anyway, the main issue is that, if you use the pre-registered protocol, the study appears to have null results
And yet, reported as positive to massive worldwide acclaim 
14/n This has nothing to do with fraud, takes literally minutes to check, and I encourage everyone to do so. Please let me know if I've made an error somewhere
15/n Also, to be clear - I'm not accusing the authors of any research misconduct, this is just very basic due diligence that everyone should do for any trial that they read
16/n Also worth noting that it is entirely possible the study still has some positive results when you add these patients back in - the point is their primary outcome, which is the main thing reported, seems to change substantially when these people are included!
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.