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
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!
While it might be reasonable to exclude those meeting the primary endpoint at baseline, this is not what is being done. They are including those w/ 30-35 PCR Ct, who then immediately meet the primary endpoint. When was this decision made? Is it specified in the protocol? SAP?
I cannot find a timeline of the decision-making, although hard to see how it could've been before the study started
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.