Researcher questions data in old paper by chloroquine researchers

Re:Researcher questions data in old paper by chloroquine res... by ejstronge on Friday March 27, 2020 @08:11AM (#22702208)

The title is editorialized, which goes against the HN rules. Linking to tweets is challenging, as there’s sometimes not a lot of context, but even the tweet doesn’t go as far as the HN title...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Researcher questions data in old paper by chloroquine res... by qilo on Friday March 27, 2020 @08:23AM (#22702277)

Literally the 2nd tweet:

As reminder: Raoult's paper on alleged #chloroquine cure of #COVID19 had rigged, omitted or even falsified data and was published without peer review in a journal he controls. Trial was not randomized, controlled or blinded in any way.

https://twitter.com/schneiderleonid/status/12429058031888220...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Researcher questions data in old paper by chloroquine res... by ejstronge on Saturday March 28, 2020 @11:16AM (#22711618)

Sorry, I did not have a chance to flesh this out. The current title ('questions data in old paper') is much more reasonable to describe a set of PubPeer comments.

I'm not making any claims about the chloroquine study.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Researcher questions data in old paper by chloroquine res... by kspacewalk2 on Friday March 27, 2020 @08:16AM (#22702242)

The tweet thread/sequence/whatever it's called absolutely does go that far and talks about him fabricating data and figures many times, among many other things.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Researcher questions data in old paper by chloroquine res... by GordonS on Friday March 27, 2020 @09:46AM (#22702761)

OP here: the chain of tweets goes much, much further than the the title I used, and I certainly wouldn't call it "editorialized" or breaking HN rules.

When submitting articles, I almost always use the original title, verbatim; but as you point out, that's seldom possible with tweets - TBH, I think the title I submitted was pretty reasonable.

[ Parent | on HN ]