Another fairly well-read ivermectin study, included in meta-analyses, definitely fraudulent Story soon
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @GidMK
Looking for reactions to this letter from Bryant et el (though with only three of the original authors). Does this address the previous concerns or would it be more appropriate to retract the paper?
@GidMK,@K_Sheldrick,@DrAndrewHill,@gorskonhttps://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/10000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AndyMCollings @K_Sheldrick and
Lol that's just hilariously dishonest. Firstly, that's not their only outcome, but secondly if you remove Elgazzar from the analysis the mortality benefit is derived entirely from Niaee et al and so any sensitivity analysis removes it (as I've shown)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @AndyMCollings and
Also, the authors were perhaps premature in publishing this letter as there are more retractions to come I suspect
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @K_Sheldrick and
Actually there are coordinated letters. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097%2FMJT.0000000000001450 … and https://dx.doi.org/10.1097%2FMJT.0000000000001450 … in addition to the one above. Can
@gorskon (editorial board member?) shed any light on the journal's role in all this?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Lol this is wild nonsense but it will be fascinating to see the response when the next retractions occur
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.