So wait, am I reading this right that this study didn& #39;t even *attempt* to create matched, pseudo-random groups via post-facto stats wankery like the VA paper tried (and failed miserably) to do? They just used as their two groups people who were given HCQ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext">https://www.thelancet.com/journals/...

and people who weren& #39;t? In a clinical environment in which doctors were being told by FDA to only give it to the most severe cases?

Lol, I didn& #39;t even think it would be possible to do a study so low quality it would make the VA paper look good in comparison

I don& #39;t have much faith that when the large-scale RCTs do eventually publish that they& #39;ll show positive results, since I think they& #39;re mostly testing on already-hospitalized patients, where it likely doesn& #39;t do any good. But the fact that there seems to be a rush to publish these

junk science data-mining exercises makes me wonder if they& #39;ve gotten word through the grapevine that an RCT is going to read out with positive results soon, so they& #39;re trying to preempt that. idk though

Someone with a locked account is apparently faving and RTing this thread... show yourself!!