Yes of course. People just don't care as much, generally
-
-
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
3 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @diviacaroline
IIUC, you're saying that several studies with strongly positive results look reasonably solid by the analysis you and your collaborator(s?) did. Other than the Vallejos study, the others in your first tweet are all strongly positive, some of them showing results in the 90% range.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
Not really. Most of them had null results for their primary endpoint, although some did find some positive stuff on subgroup analyses. It varies
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.