Read on Twitter
So wait, am I reading this right that this study didn'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
and people who weren'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't even think it would be possible to do a study so low quality it would make the VA paper look good in comparison
Lol, I didn'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't have much faith that when the large-scale RCTs do eventually publish that they'll show positive results, since I think they're mostly testing on already-hospitalized patients, where it likely doesn'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've gotten word through the grapevine that an RCT is going to read out with positive results soon, so they're trying to preempt that. idk though
Someone with a locked account is apparently faving and RTing this thread... show yourself!!
