Since you are so incredibly knowledgeable please edify me and post the percentage of perprint studies in which a journal issues an Expression of Concern to alert readers to the fact that serious scientific questions have been brought to our attention. According to your argument, it should be extremely common. Is it like 80%? It must be at least 75% because you are inferring it is SOP and totally normal. I am sure that know that number off the top of your head. Otherwise, you are just making shit up and look like a moron. You are clearly not even a self-taught dev or you would be fully aware that sanitizing data is the fucking 1st step after obtaining the data. Furthermore, since all the authors did on this study was to obtain data apply then apply some stats, really their entire task really simply consisted of sanitizing the data because applying some stats takes seconds especially in Python. Sanitazing the data is really all they had to do. So, you are arguing that the authors miserably failed at their one and only fucking task. Are you really going to continue to argue that these are the dumbest authors of a scientific paper on the face of the planet. Just for your edification, the steps are not obtain data then publish data in a scientific study in a journal. Wow! You stupidity never ceases to amaze me.
The expression of concern is in the context of the current crisis. Exceptional times. How are you not understanding this? Once the paper is reviewed, corrected and published as a peer rev.. OK you still can't tell the difference between pre and post review... Still blame your father for not raising you with any standards. My daughter, missus, brother, half my cousins (actually several girlfriends before) have PhDs and I have helped prepare a dozen or more papers etc. I only have a masters. Just go back to sniffing your own farts and giggling. You will never get this.
Oh, okay. So, how many of papers on the following site have had the journal in which is was published issue an Expression of Concern to alert readers to the fact that serious scientific questions have been brought to our attention. You are continuing to argue that the authors completely and totally failed at their only task wrt to study. I am done with this. Mark Twain's quote fits you well, “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” If that is the case, you should probably ask their advice before you post again and look like such an idiot.
You can ignore the context of the current events, just savor your farts, seems all you have you high-school lightweight.
Once again Hydroxychloroquine proven to be completely worthless as a preventative treatment for COVID-19... Hydroxychloroquine didn’t prevent Covid-19 in the first large study using the most reliable way of testing a drug’s effectiveness, researchers found. Wednesday, June 3, 2020 3:10 PM EST https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/health/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-trump.html The study was the first controlled clinical trial of a drug that President Trump has repeatedly promoted and recently taken himself. Conducted in the United States and Canada, this trial was the first to test whether the drug could prevent illness in people who have been exposed to the coronavirus. Malaria Drug Promoted by Trump Did Not Prevent Covid Infections, Study Finds The first carefully controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine given to people exposed to the coronavirus did not show any benefit. The malaria drug hydroxychloroquine did not prevent Covid-19 in a rigorous study of 821 people who had been exposed to patients infected with the virus, researchers from the University of Minnesota and Canada are reporting on Wednesday. The study was the first controlled clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine, a drug that President Trump has repeatedly promoted and recently taken himself. Conducted in the United States and Canada, this trial was the first to test whether the drug could prevent illness in people who have been exposed to the coronavirus. This type of study, in which patients are picked at random to receive either an experimental treatment or a placebo, is considered the most reliable way to measure the safety and effectiveness of a drug. The participants were health care workers and people who had been exposed at home to ill spouses, partners or parents. “The take-home message for the general public is that if you’re exposed to someone with Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine is not an effective post-exposure, preventive therapy,” the lead author of the study, Dr. David R. Boulware, from the University of Minnesota, said in an interview. The results are published in The New England Journal of Medicine. “If we could find something that would ameliorate infection, block it or make it milder after a solid exposure, that would be quite wonderful,” said Dr. Judith Feinberg, the vice chairwoman for research in medicine at West Virginia University. “What we want to do is limit the number of cases. There was great hope riding on this.” The president’s promotion of the drug, and the backlash against it, have politicized medical questions that would normally have been left to researchers to answer objectively. Trump supporters and opponents have accused one another of twisting facts about the drug to make the president look either right, or wrong. But Mr. Trump has not stopped touting the drug’s potential benefits. On Sunday, his administration announced that it was sending 2 million doses of the drug to Brazil, to treat patients and help prevent infection in health care workers. A White House official said the two countries would collaborate on research into its use. Early in the pandemic, the drug's use was spurred by anecdotal reports from China and France of patients who seemed to improve and laboratory findings of a possible antiviral effect. With no proven treatment for Covid-19, doctors have been desperate to give severely ill patients some kind of therapy. Data from more recent studies have been called into question in the last week, furthering debates over the drug’s role in trials around the world. On Wednesday, the World Health Organization said it would resume trials it had temporarily suspended over the issues raised about data used in a study in the Lancet. Interest in the drug surged after Mr. Trump began advocating it. It is approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, as well as malaria, and is considered safe for those patients as long as they do not have underlying abnormalities in their heart rhythm. Studies in very ill coronavirus patients have linked the drug — especially when combined with the antibiotic azithromycin — to dangerous heart-rhythm disorders, and both the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases have warned that it should not be used outside of clinical trials or carefully monitored conditions in a hospital. Some researchers say that safety concerns about the drug have been overblown, alarming the public and making it difficult to recruit participants for the studies needed to determine whether the drug has any value for treatment or prevention. The new study included 821 people from across the United States and parts of Canada who had a either a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to a person who had tested positive and was ill from the coronavirus. None of the participants had symptoms themselves. High-risk exposure meant they were less than six feet from a patient for more than ten minutes, with neither a mask nor a face shield. Moderate risk meant they wore a mask, but no face shield. About 88 percent had high-risk exposures. The participants, recruited online, ranged in age from 33 to 50, with a median age of 40. About half were women, and 66 percent of the total were health care workers. They were healthy and had no underlying health problems that would have made hydroxychloroquine dangerous for them. Most of the rest had been exposed at home, to an infected spouse, partner or parent. Within four days of exposure, the participants were picked at random to receive either hydroxychloroquine or a placebo, and then followed to determine whether they had either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or an illness consistent with the virus, during the next 14 days. The drug or placebos were mailed to them, and they then reported their symptoms online to the researchers, who did not examine them. Not all the participants could be tested for the virus, because when the study was being conducted, there was still a shortage of test kits. There was no meaningful difference between the placebo group and those who took the drug. Among those taking hydroxychloroquine, 49 of 414, or 11.8 percent, became ill. In the placebo group, 58 or 407, or 14.3 percent, became ill. Analyzed statistically, the difference between those rates was not significant. The drug also did not make the illness any less severe. Side effects like nausea from hydroxychloroquine were more common than from placebos, 40.1 percent compared with 16.8 percent, but there were no problems with heart rhythm or any other serious adverse effects. Infectious disease experts who were not part of the study said it was well done and answered an important question, though the results were disappointing. Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, said: “This was a large, randomized controlled trial done by very good people. Hydroxychloroquine did not provide a notable advantage.” Noting that the drug had shown some ability to prevent the virus from infecting cells in laboratory studies, Dr. Schaffner said, “Unfortunately that did not translate into a beneficial effect in preventing the development of illness.” The study did not address the question of whether hydroxychloroquine can prevent coronavirus infection if people take it before they are exposed to a sick patient. That possibility is being studied in other clinical trials involving health care workers and emergency medical technicians and other emergency medical workers. At a Senate hearing on the F.D.A.’s oversight of foreign drug manufacturing on Tuesday, Democrats criticized the agency for its decision in March to give an emergency use authorization to hydroxychloroquine. “The F.D.A., in my view, bowed to the pressure and issued what’s called an ‘emergency use authorization’ for the drug,” said Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Finance, which sponsored the hearing. “Doing so threw open the door to tens of millions of pills, including some, directly related to this hearing, manufactured inside facilities in Pakistan and India that have either failed F.D.A.’s inspection or never been inspected by the F.D.A. at all.”
Seriously... I don't know if its effective when combined with zinc I have seen plenty of doctors making that claim... but nobody... for months now has claimed Hydroxycholorquine alone is beneficial. why do we keep seeing these studies of hydroxy alone? this is the opposite of news.
it's not hydroxy alone you guise (now that the miracle drug narrative is crumbling), it's gotta be a combo w/this other supplement
H4M, don't cornfuse 'em with facts. Save Us Mr Bill!, Mr Foucher! OMG! is i daid yet? Well worth shutting down the world for, no? lol. Good Job Fouchmeister. This is on YOU, baby. Not to mention that Obama funded gain of function research at NCarolina lab AFTER that type of research was shut down in the USA. All Yall, Fine Job. Stop the Woild, lol. Beautiful use of resources. Chumps. Get The Hell Out Of Here.
Because the Proper method of Hydroxy treatment full course costs $20.00, how they sposed to game that crap and skim some bacshesh, no, put infecteds in old folks homes for $13K a pop and ventilate they ass for $30k more. Next.