3/n Even if you dislike me personally for whatever reason, several independent experts on fraud confirmed that this data cannot possibly have come from a real RCT i.e. https://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2021/07/Some-problems-with-the-data-from-a-Covid-study.html …
-
Show this thread
-
4/n It's not really a matter of "independent adjudication" being an issue - the study has been independently adjudicated, and the only response from the authors has been to claim that the data they said was their data isn't really, and then go silent
1 reply 3 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
5/n As to whether this impacts the meta-analyses of ivermectin: obviously it has a large impact This was THE LARGEST STUDY included in the analysis in question. It is clear that it made a BIG difference
2 replies 3 retweets 30 likesShow this thread -
6/n The authors have re-run their model, and come up with this substantially modified forest plot They say "Hence, the leading outcome conclusions (ie, for mortality and prophylaxis) are robust to the removal of the study by Elgazzar,3 contrary to the press claims"pic.twitter.com/dz52Lz7Khz
1 reply 2 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
Health Nerd Retweeted Health Nerd
7/n But this isn't scientific. They haven't rerun the actual study, they've just run one model excluding Elgazzar I noted this issue in a thread AGES agohttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1416290862724644867?s=20 …
Health Nerd added,
Health NerdVerified account @GidMK14/n So, Step 4: Sensitivity Analysis Rerunning the original model excluding both Elgazzar and Niaee gives you this result Absolutely no benefit for ivermectin on mortality. CIs include both large benefit and large detriment pic.twitter.com/tVKlmxJgppShow this thread2 replies 3 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
8/n It's a HUGE issue for a very simple reason - once you've gotten rid of the likely fraudulent Elgazzar trial, the ENTIRE MORTALITY BENEFIT comes from one very bad trial This means that even the most basic sensitivity analysis removes the effect entirely
5 replies 4 retweets 35 likesShow this thread -
9/n So when the authors say that the "leading outcome conclusions" remain unchanged, they are factually mistaken. Indeed, it appears that their entire result now relies on a single study with very substantial issues
3 replies 3 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
10/n Whether or not this means that you can still get a marginally statistically significant result in your model, it means that the certainty of that result is ENORMOUSLY downgraded, and thus the conclusions (below) are clearly reversedpic.twitter.com/4jptUFo9hw
1 reply 2 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
11/n The Niaee trial is worrisome in particular because, despite numerous efforts, the authors have refused to share any data with either myself or
@K_Sheldrick At this point, that's a huge red flag2 replies 4 retweets 31 likesShow this thread -
12/n Finally, I will note that the letter is also rather poorly timed, as just this morning we confirmed that another study the authors have included in their analysis is almost certainly fake
1 reply 5 retweets 40 likesShow this thread
13/n I think the most rigorous scientific step, at this point, is for the authors to revise their actual study I can't imagine leaving a meta-analysis containing likely fraudulent research up as-is myself, but perhaps that's just me
-
-
14/n A minor addition - another letter published alongside this makes a similar argument, but in a moment of what I can only call scientific absurdity includes another trial with serious concerns in the REVISED analysispic.twitter.com/av013wkhR2
2 replies 2 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
15/n It's rather, uh, strange to see people arguing that potential fraud has not impacted their results while still including potential fraud You can read about this study here:https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ivermectin-covid-study-suspect-data …
5 replies 3 retweets 43 likesShow this thread
End of conversation
New 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.