As to the literature as a whole, it's quite funny to see people saying that potential fraud and retracted papers increases their trust in the remaining studies. I think we should base our trust on data, not insults, but that's just me
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @diviacaroline
You have managed - as usual - to mischaracterize my argument. No news there. I also don't really care about what you consider basic or hard. That's subjective. The question is, every time you investigate a pro-IVM study and find no issues, do you report that?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alexandrosM @diviacaroline
Yes of course. People just don't care as much, generally
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The Mahmud study was truly excellent. Dr. Chaccour's research is a delight to read. Dr. Zoni has done some amazing work with his team. Prof Babalola's study has issues, but definitely isn't fraud. I've said this all publicly before
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @diviacaroline
The question is specific: do you publicly acknowledge each study you analyze, and share the results of all your investigations?
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @alexandrosM @diviacaroline
I answered yes. Have a look up the thread. We are putting everything together into a single document because corralling tweets at this point is hard to read
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @diviacaroline
So you're saying that you've only looked into the fraudulent studies plus these 4 you mentioned here? Or that there is a list of everything you've looked into somewhere in a document?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alexandrosM @diviacaroline
The second. As I said, we're going to make that public soon, although we usually do tweet about stuff as it happens. So far assessed about 30 ivermectin studies
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @diviacaroline
Mind just throwing out here the names of the ones that, by your analysis, have no issues, or are honest if imperfect?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @alexandrosM @diviacaroline
The studies I would personally consider as having low/no risk of fraud (although potentially other issues) at this point would be Mahmud, Mohan, Vallejos, Babalola, Ravirkirti, Lopez-Medina, and Biber. Not everyone agrees, but that's my assessment so far
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
Together is very low risk for fraud overall, but have not yet assessed as it is not published. I personally think that the Okumus study is unlikely to be fraudulent simply because no one would fake a study that bad
-
-
On the flip side of the coin, there's a study that is being retracted right now that I promised not to talk publicly about. The co-author is very upset as his colleagues appear to have faked the database
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.