Difference between revisions of "Flawed coronavirus studies"
(expanded) |
(additional flaws) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== Lancet study == | == Lancet study == | ||
| − | A widely publicized study published in the [[Leftist]] ''Lancet'' medical journal in [[England]] suffered from at least three fundamental flaws:<ref>https://melwy.com/blog/lancet-paper-on-chloroquine-is-overhyped-real-world-data-should-not-be-a-black-box</ref> | + | A widely publicized study published about [[[hydroxychloroquine]] (HCQ) in the [[Leftist]] ''Lancet'' medical journal in [[England]] suffered from at least three fundamental flaws:<ref>https://melwy.com/blog/lancet-paper-on-chloroquine-is-overhyped-real-world-data-should-not-be-a-black-box</ref> |
*No reproducibility | *No reproducibility | ||
*No traceability of the data | *No traceability of the data | ||
*No transparency of the review | *No transparency of the review | ||
| + | |||
| + | The ''Lancet'' was further flawed in that it did not examine QT intervals and it used high, toxic doses of HCQ. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
{{coronavirus}} | {{coronavirus}} | ||
[[category:coronavirus]] | [[category:coronavirus]] | ||
Revision as of 04:14, May 28, 2020
Flawed coronavirus treatment studies are being promoted by Never-Trumpers, particularly as a way to disparage the effective treatment of hydroxychloroquine.
The three most prominent flaws in these flawed studies are:
- a placebo is not used for the control group, and instead another treatment is used which might also be effective (such as doses of Vitamin C)
- the patients studied are all very sick and thus unlikely to respond to any effective medication
- the patients studied are all relatively healthy and thus likely to recover regardless of the effectiveness of medication
Reports of inclusive results with the use of hydroxychloroquine typically have one of the above design flaws, perhaps intentionally so by someone who cares most about defeating President Trump for reelection, or perceives his employer or funding source for the study to have that priority.
Lancet study
A widely publicized study published about [[[hydroxychloroquine]] (HCQ) in the Leftist Lancet medical journal in England suffered from at least three fundamental flaws:[1]
- No reproducibility
- No traceability of the data
- No transparency of the review
The Lancet was further flawed in that it did not examine QT intervals and it used high, toxic doses of HCQ.