A brief explanation about a recent piece in Trial Site News about myself and others that is factually inaccurate at every turn and probably the worst piece of clear bullshit I've ever seen published online
If nothing else, the author failed to contact myself before putting out quite a number of outright untruths about me, which is a rather remarkable failing for someone who calls themselves a "journalist"
The article also appears not to have contacted any of the other organisations named, which might go some way to explaining why it is wrong about almost every point of fact included

• • •

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!


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

12 Oct
It's interesting, because the ivermectin crowd are coming after me full force now, but they're so wildly inept that their main accusations are just tediously untrue
For example, someone's recently implied that I'm paid by Bill Gates because a completely different department in my university received a grant for work on condoms from the Gates foundation, which is hilariously stupid for a whole range of reasons
What's really fascinating is that there's a lot of defamation and ad hominem, but basically no one has raised any objections to our analysis of studies, which is what you usually see when people have no real argument
Read 5 tweets
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
Read 4 tweets
9 Oct
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
Read 6 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
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

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!