Scientific Misconduct Associated with Ivermectin Meta Analysis

[-] roonie1 | 2 points | Apr 03 2021 00:10:03

What does Tess Lawrie think of Dr. Hill's meta-analysis conclusion?

Does anyone know if she has wrtiten on the topic?

[-] TehCaster | 4 points | Apr 03 2021 10:38:31

Lawrie basically said that Hill told her the conclusion was dictated by his sponsor (thus UNITAID) not his own.

[-] Inner_G84 | 2 points | Apr 03 2021 01:50:37

I believe she said in an interview video that she decided not to work with him on another project because that whole situation. She didn't agree with the outcome and his stance, is how I understood her.

[-] -tiny-- | 2 points | Apr 03 2021 10:59:51

I've done some reading on this. Do I understand correctly that Dr. Hill was in the end ok with conclusions of his research? He went on record that that was not his conclusion but he is still ok with it? What kind of a person does that?

"Dr. Hill, a well-respected researcher and advocate for economical treatments for COVID-19, is resolute and stands behind the study."

More info on this blog. https://blog.gerardmaudrux.lequotidiendumedecin.fr/2021/03/17/covid-traitements-les-masques-tombent-2/ Pay special attention to images of twitter posts of Mrs. Castigliola. Her werds almost match wording conclusions in study.

[-] ClasseD-48 | 1 points | Apr 03 2021 00:01:36

Important to point out one Dominique Costagliola, who is a French researcher employed by the French public institution of medical research INSERM, has admitted on twitter she contacted Andrew Hill by e-mail to discuss his meta-analysis and its conclusion.

Link to Tweet, link to image in case anything happens to the tweet.

She says she didn't have coercive power over him, but that doesn't mean she didn't try to influence him. When a researcher is contacted by someone so well connected to give "worries" about the way he's making his research, that in itself is a form of influence and would be certainly perceived as such on the receiving end.

[-] TehCaster | 1 points | Apr 03 2021 10:40:31

But to be honest, if it was about missing risk of bias, I think it's something even Tess Lawrie said it's missing in Hill's analysis and therefore now considers it low quality.