The "it's only five papers" about ivermectin for COVID-19 is getting more and more laughable as time goes one

Firstly, for anyone keeping score, it's now SEVEN papers with serious issues, including fraud
Secondly, this gambit started with "it's just ONE study" in July, and has become progressively more absurd as time goes on
Thirdly, and most importantly, as James says this should be your LOWER LIMIT for fraud

Seriously think about this for a second
We say we've found more issues with the literature. Every time in the past, that has turned out to be true. If you're saying "well they were right seven times but now I don't believe anything else they say" I have to wonder why you think we're lying
Going public with issues takes time and effort. We have to double check everything many times, because you don't raise issues with trials unless you're sure that you are right
That being said, I'm on email chains at the moment about retracting another two ivermectin trials, and there are several more with issues serious enough that they may be fake. Another half-dozen who have refused to share data 🤷‍♂️

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Health Nerd

Health Nerd Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GidMK

11 Oct
This is, I think, the best discourse I've seen on the whole Bad Art Friend deal. Worth reading if your soul craves discussions on drama rottenindenmark.org/2021/10/10/ide…
I think one other point that I'd make about Kolker's original piece, is that interviewing only friends of one 'side' was just bad journalism. They defend their friend, and all you see is justifications for objectively bad behaviour that they also participated in
I mean, this whole fragment struck me as bizarre. The entire thing is a friend defending her buddy, but the actual context - that her friend wrote an openly bullying story that she then tried to monetize - is just brushed off Image
Read 4 tweets
8 Oct
Of all the terrible defenses of ivermectin fraud, I think the "but 20% of all medical research is said to be fraudulent!" angle is one of the weirdest
Firstly, it doesn't matter at all. If every house on your street is one fire, pointing at the other houses and yelling "they're on fire too!" doesn't extinguish the flames eating away at your wedding photos
Secondly, the 20% figure is a very extreme estimate. Now, I thoroughly respect Prof Ben Mol, who is the one who made that assessment, but I'm not sure I agree that the average rate is actually that high blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05…
Read 9 tweets
4 Oct
Lots of people have been asking me to take a look at this observational ivermectin trial from Argentina, and I thought it'd be a nice change from all the fraud so here's a bit of a thread 1/n
2/n The trial is here, and it is a fairly simple epidemiological trial comparing people who were given ivermectin with those who weren't on ICU admission/death using large-scale registries in Argentina
zenodo.org/record/5525362…
3/n I've done a brief check for fraud, and the study looks fine. Honestly, I have no real issues with this paper as is, it's just not very useful as evidence for ivermectin

Let's think about why that is
Read 14 tweets
4 Oct
For those interested in facts, there are two more fraudulent ivermectin trials with news dropping this week, at least two more with very high probability of fraud soon to come
It's also worth noting that when I talk about fraud, I'm only considering clinical and observational trials. Most of the ecological trials are so woeful that it doesn't really matter if anyone faked them, and I don't really assess basic science
Anyway, if you want to know exactly how many studies are flawed, we'll hopefully have it all up this week. Takes time to assemble this stuff working unpaid in our free time!
Read 5 tweets
2 Oct
Our big new study on the infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in developing countries is out

The news is pretty grim 🧵

medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
Throughout the pandemic, there has been an apparent contradiction - low-income places appear to have lower death rates from COVID-19 than higher-income areas

This makes no sense on the face of it
So, we looked at the infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 in every place that we could find, using antibodies to estimate the number of infections in each area and the number of registered deaths as our numerator
Read 15 tweets
25 Sep
Interesting paper. Seems to make it extremely unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a lab
It is amazing how many people mischaracterize "extremely likely" as "the only possible answer"

No, this does not mean that a lab leak is totally impossible
That being said, the appearance of very closely-related coronaviruses in non-lab settings obviously makes a natural origin quite likely, especially as there are no more closely related viruses in labs 🤷‍♂️
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(