Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Flawed coronavirus studies (view source)

Revision as of 21:22, May 30, 2020

178 bytes added ,  21:22, May 30, 2020
→‎Lancet study: Numerous critics of the ''Lancet'' article have picked it apart and debunked it.
Line 16: Line 16:     
The ''Lancet'' was further flawed in that it did not examine QT intervals, and it used high, toxic doses of HCQ.  The study also failed to use zinc in combination with HCQ despite how that combination is widely publicized as the effective protocol.
 
The ''Lancet'' was further flawed in that it did not examine QT intervals, and it used high, toxic doses of HCQ.  The study also failed to use zinc in combination with HCQ despite how that combination is widely publicized as the effective protocol.
 +
 +
Numerous critics of the ''Lancet'' article have picked it apart and debunked it.<ref>[https://www.medicineuncensored.com/a-study-out-of-thin-air A Study Out of Thin Air]</ref>
 +
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{reflist}}
Aschlafly
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,231

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/1652569"

Navigation menu