Read on Twitter
Let’s take a close look at how HCQ science is being done.
This study was published by @boulware_dr in the NEJM in early june
In a randomized trial for post-exposure, they concluded “[treatment] did not prevent illness compatible with COVID-19.." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638
This study was published by @boulware_dr in the NEJM in early june
In a randomized trial for post-exposure, they concluded “[treatment] did not prevent illness compatible with COVID-19.." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638
I read this study when it came out
I had some issues with the methodology but I never challenged the analysis or conclusions
In fact @JML21071664 tried to point something else out to me and I didn’t read the data correctly. I misunderstood...
https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1268989103204425728?s=20
I had some issues with the methodology but I never challenged the analysis or conclusions
In fact @JML21071664 tried to point something else out to me and I didn’t read the data correctly. I misunderstood...
https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1268989103204425728?s=20
I did get around to doing a second analysis after coming across this
@CovidAnalysis does a fantastic job explaining why the study’s conclusions were actually not what the data was saying
It gets a bit technical but it an excellent analysis https://c19study.com/boulware.html
@CovidAnalysis does a fantastic job explaining why the study’s conclusions were actually not what the data was saying
It gets a bit technical but it an excellent analysis https://c19study.com/boulware.html
Dr. Boulware just published a new study looking at early HCQ treatment
My biggest issue was participants were too young to be able to learn anything
Age IFRs were not known when the study was designed so they changed outcome to look at symptoms
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-4207
My biggest issue was participants were too young to be able to learn anything
Age IFRs were not known when the study was designed so they changed outcome to look at symptoms
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-4207
In other words, if you look at age based IFRs then you realize that you are unlikely to have any deaths and very few hospitalizations
I don’t like changing the endpoint to symptoms. I also didn’t like how they used symptoms in first study to establish who had covid. Very messy
I don’t like changing the endpoint to symptoms. I also didn’t like how they used symptoms in first study to establish who had covid. Very messy
If we look closer at the study (which @CovidAnalysis does) you will see that hospitalizations were double in the control group
There were also two non-Covid hospitalization in the control
And one non-hospitalized death in HCQ arm (1 also in control) https://c19study.com/skipper.html
There were also two non-Covid hospitalization in the control
And one non-hospitalized death in HCQ arm (1 also in control) https://c19study.com/skipper.html
Also, when the study was release Dr. Boulware posted an infographic showing hospitalization was 2% for HCQ and 3% for Control.
Except that’s wrong. He rounded 1.886% up to 2 and 3.791% was rounded down to two
Infographic no longer available it seems https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1284156847734366208
Except that’s wrong. He rounded 1.886% up to 2 and 3.791% was rounded down to two
Infographic no longer available it seems https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1284156847734366208
All these things are red flags for me so I dig a little deeper
First I looked on his twitter feed and found RTs of Fauci love, Trump criticism and a retweet of the misleading cases per day EU v US chart
That chart is intellectually dishonest - its used to make a political point
First I looked on his twitter feed and found RTs of Fauci love, Trump criticism and a retweet of the misleading cases per day EU v US chart
That chart is intellectually dishonest - its used to make a political point
Then I came across this
Not a good look to be doing HCQ research when you’ve taken money from Gilead which stands to benefit from an HCQ competitor (Remdesivir) https://twitter.com/lukemor19529310/status/1284023642058301440
Not a good look to be doing HCQ research when you’ve taken money from Gilead which stands to benefit from an HCQ competitor (Remdesivir) https://twitter.com/lukemor19529310/status/1284023642058301440
Or that he’s good for a quote helping out Gilead
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/pharma-giant-gilead-s-price-for-coronavirus-drug-draws-criticism-20200630-p557gd.html
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/pharma-giant-gilead-s-price-for-coronavirus-drug-draws-criticism-20200630-p557gd.html
Dr Boulware’s response
-if he did get a $17 sandwich then he should sat that (though it said research grant)
-the strongest criticism has been about his analysis and conclusions, not his design
-blowing off legitimate criticism with “Russian Trolls” is again not a good look
-if he did get a $17 sandwich then he should sat that (though it said research grant)
-the strongest criticism has been about his analysis and conclusions, not his design
-blowing off legitimate criticism with “Russian Trolls” is again not a good look
So obviously this happened
And that’s how HCQ research gets done
Draw your own conclusions
And that’s how HCQ research gets done
Draw your own conclusions
