Hacker News Reader

The problem with that study is that it's widely cited and powerful; it is apparently responsible for the majority of all attributed positive effect for ivermectin in meta-analyses. The fact that it's author was fraudulent doesn't mitigate that!

View on HN

The link I provided discussed that study and its impact and claimed that it certainly doesn't reverse any meta studies.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Any meta-study that included the data from that paper has obviously been corrupted by it. And it was widely used in those studies.

Just by way of example, the FLCCC's comprehensive review article, which you cited favorably above, includes dozens of citations to the now-withdrawn Algazzar study.

Do "citations" affect the data? Citations are just for anti-plagiarism and for clout building, not science.

If they are studies that are performing meta-analyses (and most of the studies citing the fraudulent article are), yes.

Do meta analyses not control for the influence of outlier studies?

Could I just make up a phony result with 100000000x alleged effect and drown out all other studies in every meta analysis?

See the link at the top of the thread. That's more or less what happened here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com