All of this is, uh, not great, but these three doctors from Indonesia thought the study was itself suspicious. They'd never heard of the authors, despite the massive international attention
So they had a look to see if any of this was real
To cut a long story short...the authors may not exist, the institution has no record of the study, no ethics application seems to have been filed, and at the time the study was written in the region it supposedly came from there were only 2 confirmed COVID-19 cases
While none of this definitively proves fraud, it is a wild story, especially given the enormous global impact this study had
The global impact wasn't limited to news reports - the paper has been cited ~100 times so far, i.e. this recent narrative review where it's used to argue that vitamin D should be part of the treatment of COVID-19 for people with diabetes
Also it appears that one of the authors of the investigative paper is on twitter @RaymondPranata
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The bottom line is pretty depressing - we've spent months arguing back and forth, meanwhile this paper has had a HUGE impact and probably impacted policy decisions across the world
Thing is, our debate about this article has been FAST by academic standards
Three letters/responses for a single article published in 6 months? Snappy by many standards
3/n For reference, if you've forgotten, the original article basically argued that "more" restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (mrNPIs) such as lockdowns didn't work to prevent COVID-19 cases
It is MASSIVELY popular, with an Altmetric of 19k and dozens of citations
There is now some reasonably strong evidence that non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 ("lockdowns") were associated with decreased short-term suicides in several locations in the world
In a number of other places, while not associated with a decrease, they were also not associated with an increase either. In fact, best evidence suggests no link between lockdowns and an increased short-term suicide rate
One of the most bizarre things is that whenever you point out the fact that suicide rates have not generally increased during lockdowns or indeed the pandemic, people get very angry at you
Personally, I think it's quite a good thing that there have been fewer suicides
We often discuss academic "silencing" as a sort of nasty attack on people's credentials, but rarely does that include police detectives investigating people for publishing scientific articles 👀👀👀
And while I have absolutely no expertise in paediatric forensics, I've read Dr. Brook's piece which while retracted is still available as a preprint, and it does not seem like a wild and unscientific document researchgate.net/profile/C-Broo…
2/n The article reports a survey that was run by @smh and @theage talking to adults about whether they were "likely" to be vaccinated "in the months ahead"
3/n According to the article, with nearly a third responding that they were unlikely to be vaccinated, there is a serious reason for concern representing an "alarming level of vaccine hesitancy"
Graduate students are the backbone of all scientific endeavours, and often do amazing work without which we would all be lost
Perhaps more importantly, it is fundamentally unscientific to argue that someone's publication record makes any difference to the truth of their arguments