Share this page!

Health Nerd Profile picture
Twitter logo
2 Nov, 4 tweets, 1 min read
The Lebanese ivermectin study has been retracted, with the lead author claiming that the fake data used in the paper was meant to "train a research assistant"

retractionwatch.com/2021/11/02/ive…
How this mistake was made, and why they generated an entirely fake dataset that matches their actual conclusions which was statistically analyzed and published is not elucidated on
Gotta say, I've never created fake outcome data to train a research assistant (in what?), but if I did I doubt it would be kept anywhere near the real data from my trial 🤷‍♂️
If you want to read more, I wrote a post on this particular study gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin-…

• • •

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

Health Nerd Profile picture
3 Nov
I always find it bizarre that people treat voting rights as some sort of philosophical battle when it's really very simple maths: right-wing groups will always act to block rights, left-wing groups will always try to get more people voting
The groups who don't vote are traditionally disadvantaged groups - younger people, lower-income, minorities etc. There's some variation within that structure, but it's pretty consistent
These are also the groups most likely to vote left-wing. If you're being brutally pragmatic (as most political people are), and left-wing group will want to broaden the vote because most of those extra voters will probably vote for them
Read 4 tweets
Health Nerd Profile picture
3 Nov
There is a lot of medical nonsense out there that is depressing and sad, but every once in a while it's worth remembering that large animal chiropractic exists and is both very silly and incredibly funny to watch
Here is a video of a chiropractor 'adjusting' a giraffe's spine by poking it. A giraffe has vertebrae that are ~30cm thick, you can't adjust that without a large hammer of some kind
Here's a video of someone adjusting the spine of a ~600Kg dairy cow with their bare hands. The cow does not even notice
Read 5 tweets
Health Nerd Profile picture
26 Oct
People commonly claim that pharmaceutical companies can't make money on drugs that are off or close to being off-patent

So let's talk about the famous case of Nexium and Prilosec 1/n
2/n The story begins in 1989, when the company that later became Astrazeneca patented a drug for acid reflux that worked better than anything on the market. The drug, named Prilosec, became one of the best-selling medications at the time
3/n However, in the late 90s/early 00s, the company making Prilosec faced an issue - their drug was soon to be off patent, and despite record sales generic manufacturers wanted to start selling cheaper versions
Read 17 tweets
Health Nerd Profile picture
26 Oct
In something of a hilarious development, the ivmmeta authors have added a section titled "with GMK exclusions" to their website

Unfortunately, this still includes endless awful studies. Let's take a look at some of the papers that remain on this website
2/n Firstly, we've got studies that probably or definitely did not take place as described. I'd not include these in any analysis, certainly not an aggregate model ImageImage
3/n We've got a few case series that are just a bit of a waste of time - without even controlling for age, these provide no useful evidence even as part of an aggregate model ImageImage
Read 17 tweets
Health Nerd Profile picture
25 Oct
Some of the ivermectin trials are just...wildly terrible

This study has been cited 23 times. Appears in the Bryant et al and other systematic reviews. And it is just very bad
The study claims to be an RCT comparing ivermectin to a control group for prophylaxis, giving either ivermectin or no prophylaxis at all to contacts of presumed COVID cases
Firstly, the study is published in a journal that has an entire page dedicated to why it's not predatory, which is, uh, not a brilliant sign. Apparently it's not a problem that they were delisted from Pubmed
Read 7 tweets
Health Nerd Profile picture
24 Oct
One very important line "any eventual retraction would come only after “due process, free from coercion or pressure.”"

This right here exemplifies why academia is fundamentally not equipped to handle a pandemic
The study in question was preprinted in November. Published earlier this year. It's been included in over a dozen systematic reviews

And it's borked. Enormously flawed
If the journal follows the traditional academic path, they'll wait 5 years until no one cares any more and then quietly post an editorial note, hoping no one notices. Meanwhile, the study has informed clinical guidelines and patient treatment for over a year already 🤷‍♂️
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!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @GidMK has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @GidMK!

Read all threads by @GidMK

:(