Here's the letter my co-authors had sent on that now retracted "cloth masks don't work" study (42 citations on Google Scholar already and countless news articles). Note: it was always so underpowered that it was fairly useless even without these errors.https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1267832478502391813 …
-
-
Aaaand, that Lancet HCQ harms study is retracted. Again, please do note that the study had quickly raised concerns among the scientific community. It contradicted existing knowledge. There was an open letter by prominent scientists from top universities.https://twitter.com/TheLancet/status/1268613313702891523 …
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@threadreaderapp would you kindly unrollThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Zeynep, if a journalist wanted to know if a given study was meaningful, they'd need to have their own science sources? Is there a checklist (yet) of things they could look for, to verify? How would we create & incrementally expand such a checklist?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The findings of the study were compelling- not 100%, but 90% or so. Unless it was faked. That's the issue here. If we take the position that observational studies are worthless, we have to throw out a lot of science. If an RCT is revealed as fake, does that make RCTs worthless?
-
Nope. There were already significant issues which many scientists pointed out—and even published an open letter. The data was weird. Severity not properly controlled for. That the unblinded RCT study did not find harms was loud signal to anyone who understood a bit of statistics.
- Show replies
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.