Off-Topic: Is This Study Valid??????
(Lake Talquin Specific)
3 messages
Updated 8/23/2023 7:57:32 AM
Lakes Online Forum
83,629 messages
Updated 5/22/2024 1:39:30 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Lake Talquin Specific)
1 messages
Updated 2/16/2011
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
CRD
-
|
Subject:
|
Is This Study Valid??????
|
Date:
|
7/19/2020 9:22:58 PM
|
|
Upon cursory review, I saw that only 58% of participants actually received SARS-CoV-2 testing. Who knows what the other 42% had who received a placebo or HCQ. Why could they not control that variable? Calling this study a gold standard is a bit much to digest, were for it to be truly worthy of its conclusions, 100% would have to been tested and found positive. Participants were enrolled presumably via internet based surveys?? 43% had ill effects from HCQ? The drug has been around for decades, never approaching a 43% adverse effect rate. I have my suspicions about this study, but no doubt the MSM will not ask the serious questions and run with it.
|
|