The big COVID-19 retraction: Top people don’t notice the smell?

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 8, 2020

Intelligent Design, Medicine, Peer review}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A science journalists’ site weighs in on the historic retraction of Lancet anti-hydroxychloroquine paper:

Only one of the four authors of the paper had access to the data, Dr. Sepan Desai, who is the founder of the company Surgisphere that allegedly collected the data. The Lancet article indicates that he provided the statistical analysis of the dataset, which was subsequently discussed in the paper by the other authors. Since they had known one another for several years and had no reason to doubt his veracity, they accepted the analysis sight unseen. And while that approach frequently works in one-to-one relationships, should that be the standard for co-authorship?
“Mandeep Mehra, a Harvard University doctor who was a co-author on that study, said: “It is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute this research during a time of great need, I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use. For that, and for all the disruptions — both directly and indirectly — I am truly sorry.” [1]
While this explanation is not quite “the dog ate my homework,” it is not an apology.
Chuck Dinerstein, “Eminence Over Evidence: The Lancet’s COVID-19 Retraction” at American Council on Science and Health

Hit the source for more.

For the record, Uncommon Descent has no official opinion on this mess except to say, yes, a fumigator is badly needed at The Lancet.

ee also: Why not to trust “science” just now: COVID-19 edition We’ve been hearing complaints about Lancet and other journals for years. Trust but verify. “Science” is a discipline, not an incantation.

Comments

Covid-19 hospitalizations in Utah are still rising. This is leading the state’s healthcare providers to worry about future hospital capacity. Hospitalizations for COVID-19 are up 42% in Utah over the past 11 days. Why? “Anecdotally, we’re seeing fewer masks on people. We’re also seeing instances where people are gathering. We saw that with the protests over the last two weeks, where a lot of people are coming together and some are wearing masks, others are not. But a large group of people that are gathering close together, we’re seeing that in other areas as well,” Gomez says. University of Utah Chief Medical Officer Dr. Thomas Miller says “More and more people are coming back to work, and are coming in contact with one another, and that’s unfortunately how the virus spreads,” Dr. Miller thinks it’s important for people to go back to work, but also for employees to use face masks and hand sanitizer to keep COVID-19 from spreading. https://kslnewsradio.com/1927024/covid-19-hospitalizations-in-utah-are-up-42-why/?rhampton7_{June 10, 2020
June
06
Jun
10
10
2020
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

Arizona's largest hospital system warned over the past week that its intensive care units are filling up, ventilator use was on the rise and capacity was reached for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation treatment. "We have seen a steady climb of COVID-19 cases in Arizona over the last two weeks," Banner Health tweeted Monday. "This trend is concerning to us, and also correlates with a rise in cases that we are seeing in our hospital ICUs." Dr. Kacey Ernst, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Arizona, said all signs seem to point to the increasing transmission of the disease. Increased testing could explain increased cases, but not increased hospitalizations, she said. Arizona does appear to be increasing more than other states, she said. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/10/arizona-coronavirus-cases-hospitalizations-increase-after-reopening/5332572002/rhampton7_{June 10, 2020
June
06
Jun
10
10
2020
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

Check it out- 2 papers on vitamin D and covid-19: 1. Ilie PC, et al. “The role of vitamin D in the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 infection and mortality.” Aging Clin Exp Res. 2020;1:4. 2. Grant WB, et al. “Evidence that vitamin D supplementation could reduce risk of influenza and COVID-19 infections and deaths.” Nutrients. 2020;12(4):E988.ET_{June 10, 2020
June
06
Jun
10
10
2020
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

RH7, those fig leaves make not 10c worth of difference to the ethical dilemma. Without significant evidence of potential no drug would be considered for use on people. In this situation, the business as usual option [BAU] is Flu with complications treatments, in absence of broad spectrum antivirals. The idea of exposing people instead to deliberately mislabelled sugar pills in the face of a fast acting potentially deadly disease implies disrespect for human life. Especially when comparison of such ALTS to BAU is more than adequate for inductive, empirical warrant of effectiveness and to guide a gap analysis. There is no need to construct an artificial no treatment control group. Worse, the trials process, it is known, will credibly take a year to a year and half, thus forcing us to not have an accepted treatment when it is needed. Compounding all of this, obstacles have been set up in many cases that try to force doctors to try to treat too far down the U and to not use the true candidate, a cocktail. And such are precisely the sort of issues that have long been on the table. See Dr Raoult above. Note his results. KFkairosfocus_{June 10, 2020
June
06
Jun
10
10
2020
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

RHampton continues to indicate that he does not understand when and how HCQ should be administered as a valid treatment for C19. He continues to present irrelevant information. My guess by doing so he has not been able to find any relevant information.
Some 10 hospitals, including the Utrecht and Maastricht teaching hospitals, were involved in testing the use of chloroquine and the related hydroxychloroquine
Are these hospitalized patients? If so then the studies are irrelevant. The purpose of the HCQ + treatment is to prevent hospitalization among the target group before it the infection becomes too severe and requires hospitalizaztion.
Currently, there are 398 COVID19 clinical trials using hydroxychloroquine and/or chloroquine as a primary or secondary intervention. Of these, 216 (54%) of them are currently in ‘ongoing’ status
Confusing at best. First, there are 398 C19 clinical trials. But then there are only 216 ongoing. Does that mean 183 are over or have not began? If they are over than none are relevant as far as I know. At least I have not seen any relevant ones reported.jerry_{June 10, 2020
June
06
Jun
10
10
2020
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

KF, you do know that clinical trials are voluntary and upfront about possible risks, being randomly assigned to placebos or alternative treatments, etc. right? https://www.outsourcing-pharma.com/Article/2020/06/10/Covance-launches-COVID-19-clinical-trial-matching-platformrhampton7_{June 10, 2020
June
06
Jun
10
10
2020
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Currently, there are 398 COVID19 clinical trials using hydroxychloroquine and/or chloroquine as a primary or secondary intervention. Of these, 216 (54%) of them are currently in ‘ongoing’ status. This signals that much more data are on the way to determine if hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment against COVID19. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200610/GlobalData-Use-of-hydroxychloroquine-as-COVID19-treatment-continues-to-be-debated.aspxrhampton7_{June 10, 2020
June
06
Jun
10
10
2020
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Some 10 hospitals, including the Utrecht and Maastricht teaching hospitals, were involved in testing the use of chloroquine and the related hydroxychloroquine, which started on April 15. Work was halted two weeks ago after a report in medical journal The Lancet which said that use of the drug had led to more deaths. That report has since been withdrawn, but the Dutch researchers have decided to abandon their project anyway. In particular, other unpublished British research involving 5,000 patients had shown no difference in the results between patients given the drug and a control group, project leader Andy Hoepelman told the AD. In addition, there were too few coronavirus patients taking part in the Dutch study, which needed at least 1,000, Hoepelman said. The Dutch study aimed to look at the impact of the drugs on patients who had been admitted to hospital but were not in intensive care, comparing their effects with those on standard treatment. https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/06/dutch-research-into-covid-19-and-anti-malarial-drugs-is-halted/rhampton7_{June 10, 2020
June
06
Jun
10
10
2020
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Jerry – why are they irrelevant?
Strange question. You must not be aware of the issues even after about a thousand plus comments on treating the infection by the virus and probably 50+ in answer to your specific comments. Just because something is a RCT does not mean it is relevant. They were done on the wrong populations with the wrong treatment. So what have we learned - the wrong treatment (HCQ alone) does not work on an inappropriate population(hospitalized patients for which the treatment is too late.) Or that nothing bad happened to an inappropriate population (young people) for which nothing bad was the expected outcome. Let me try to design a relevant study. 1) People have been identified as having C19 either through a test or a clinical diagnosis. If clinical diagnosis then test as soon as possible but administer treatment immediately. 2) they are in a high risk group - over 60 years of age or younger with comorbidities 3) given HCQ + zinc + Azithromycin as the treatment or just two alone that includes HCQ The relevant outcome is lack of hospitalization or given hospitalization a quick recovery. None of the studies RHampton linked to comes close to this. No study done with the above treatment has been shown to be negative. So apparently after two months of posts here neither you or he understands the relevant issues.jerry_{June 10, 2020
June
06
Jun
10
10
2020
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Some of what needs to be squarely faced. KFkairosfocus_{June 10, 2020
June
06
Jun
10
10
2020
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

F/N: Raoult, again, on sugar pills games: https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/RCT-and-Outbreaks-main-manuscript-BMJ-v5.pdf >>Assay Randomised Controlled Trials during epidemic Philippe Brouqui, Pierre Verger, Didier Raoult Aix Marseille Université, IRD, MEPHI, VITROME, ORS Paca, IHU-Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France philippe.brouqui[at]univ-amu.fr In epidemics there is an urgent need for new knowledge on drug efficacy to help policymakers fight the crisis. Yet the best research methodology to do this is a matter of de bate, write Philippe Brouqui, Pierre Verger and Didier Raoult . The outbreak of an emerging infectious agent needs the rapid involvement of research to bring new knowledge. Past experience with Ebola virus outbreaks and, more recently SARS-CoV 2, have raised a question over the place of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as the methodology of choice to answer clinical questions in an novel epidemic situation. Drug safety and effectiveness is a long process which can take years. For antimicrobials, just 25% of drugs submitted to phase 1 succeed to Phase 3 and further licensing (1). This is why, in an epidemic, drug repurposing is often looked at, because drug toxicity has already been evaluated (2). An RCT isdesigned to attempt to reduce bias, particularly in trials evaluating new drugs. The principle is to random assign volunteers into two or more treatment options and then compare them against a measured outcome. As RCTs reduce causality and spurious bias, they are considered to be the most reliable form of scientific evidence. For these reasons, they are required for market authorisation of a new pharmaceutical drug and cited by healthcare policies as a mandatory means for decision -making about treatments. When gold standard becomes unethical In emerging disease outbreaks, there is an urgent lack of treatments for the new pathogen. When a particular therapeutic option is supported by scientifically demonstrated efficacy in vitro and or in animal model, and supported further by clinical case reports and/or pilot series in humans, it is ethically difficult to argue that the data still needs to be confirmed in an RCT before it can be made available to patients. Especially if it seems "obvious" that control (untreated) subjects will have poorer outcomes than those receiving treatment. As one study mocked, there would be few volunteers for the placebo group in an RCT on the parachute's effectiveness in avoiding death by jumping out of an airplane, unless the jump had an average height of 0.6 m (3). When even imperfect scientific data show a particularly obvious effect, it is no longer ethical to perform an RCT since it forces patients to accept either not to be treated (in the control arm), or to be treated with a molecule known to be effective. Consider the advent of penicillin. It took five patients before Sir Edward Abraham could definitively demonstrate that penicillin saved 100% of patients with staphylococcus or streptococcus infections. Nobody today would dare to test the efficacy of penicillin on pneumococcal pneumonia compared to placebo . . . >> KFkairosfocus_{June 10, 2020
June
06
Jun
10
10
2020
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

F/N: Raoult again https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/14784BSL_English_version_Comparaison_in_silico_v6_final.pdf >>Title: Adjusting series of patients for trial comparisons for COVID - 19 treatments 1 2 Author list : 3Audrey GIRAUD -GATINEAU1,2,3,4 (PhD student); Jean Christophe LAGIER 1,4,5 (MD); 4 Yolande OBADIA 1 (MD); Hervé CHAUDET 1,2,3 (MD); Didier RAOULT 1,5* (MD) Abstract : 25 Background : SARS - COV-2 has emerged and spread around the world since December 2019. 26 Studies initiated in Marseille by our hospital centre have suggested significant clinical 27 effectiveness of treatment by combining hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (HCQ+AZ). 28 However, due to the urgency of responding to the pandemic, they were not obtained through 29 randomized controlled trials. Alternative assessment methods are therefore needed. 30 31 Methods: We compared our data in silico with those published by two studies comparing 32 other antiviral drugs. For this purpose, random sampling was performed in our cohort to 33 obtain similar groups for disease severity, gender, age and comorbidities associated with 34 chronic diseases with patients included in the remdesivir and lopinavir-ritonavir trials. 35 36 Findings: Dual HCQ+AZ therapy was associated with 3 times fewer deaths than similar 37groups treated either with lopinavir-ritonavir(9% vs 20%, p-value = 0·03) or standard care 38 (8% vs 25·2%, p-value = 0·001). Compared with patients included in the remdesivir study by 39 Wang et al., we also showed a significant difference in the clinical outcome (proportion of 40cured patients with negative viral load) in favour of HCQ+AZ (77.8% versus 58·2% p = 0·0001). 42 43 Interpretation: Although comparison of HCQ+AZ with other antiviral drugs has limitations 44due to aggregated data, this study provides additional evidence showing that HCQ+AZ should 45 be the systematic treatment of choice after diagnosis of COVID -19 -positive cases. 46 47 Funding: This work was supported by the French Government under the “Investments for the 48 Future” programme managed by the National Agency for Research (ANR), Méditerranée-49 Infection 10- IAHU - 03 , and was also supported by Région Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur and 50 European funding FEDER PRIMMI (Fonds Européen de Développement Régional -51 Plateformes de Recherche et d'Innovation Mutualisées Méditerranée Infection)>> KFkairosfocus_{June 10, 2020
June
06
Jun
10
10
2020
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

F/N: Raoult Abstract: https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/early-diagnosis-and-management-of-covid-19-patients-a-real-life-cohort-study-of-3737-patients-marseille-france/ >> COVID-IHU #15 Version 1 du 27 Mai 2020 Early diagnosis and management of COVID-19 patients: a real-life cohort study of 3,737 patients, Marseille, France Abstract Background: In our institute in Marseille, France, we proposed early and massive screening for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hospitalization and early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (HCQ-AZ) was proposed for the positive cases. Methods: We retrospectively report the clinical management of 3,737 patients, including 3,054 (81.7%) treated with HCQ-AZ for at least three days and 683 (18.3%) patients treated with other methods (“others”). Outcomes were death, transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU), ? 10 days of hospitalization and viral shedding. Results: By testing 101,522 samples by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) from 65,993 individuals, we diagnosed 6,836 patients (10.4%), including 3,737 included in our cohort. The mean age was 45 (sd 17) years, 45% were male, and the fatality rate was 0.9%. We performed 2,065 low-dose computed tomography (CT) scans highlighting lung lesions in 581 of the 933 (62%) patients with minimal clinical symptoms (NEWS score = 0). A discrepancy between spontaneous dyspnoea, hypoxemia and lung lesions was observed. Clinical factors (age, comorbidities, NEWS-2 score), biological factors (lymphopenia; eosinopenia; decrease in blood zinc; and increase in D-dimers, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), creatinine phosphokinase (CPK), and c-reactive protein (CRP)) and moderate and severe lesions detected in low-dose CT scans were associated with poor clinical outcome. Treatment with HCQ-AZ was associated with a decreased risk of transfer to the ICU or death (HR 0.19 0.12-0.29), decreased risk of hospitalization ?10 days (odds ratios 95% CI 0.37 0.26-0.51) and shorter duration of viral shedding (time to negative PCR: HR 1.27 1.16-1.39). QTc prolongation (>60 ms) was observed in 25 patients (0.67%) leading to the cessation of treatment in 3 cases. No cases of torsade de pointe or sudden death were observed. Conclusion Early diagnosis, early isolation and early treatment with at least 3 days of HCQ-AZ result in a significantly better clinical outcome and contagiosity in patients with COVID-19 than other treatments. Long-term follow-up to screen for fibrosis will be the next challenge in the management of COVID-19.>> KFkairosfocus_{June 10, 2020
June
06
Jun
10
10
2020
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

RH7 & BO'H: so soon as we are giving people facing a life threatening fast moving disease deliberately mislabeled sugar pills or the equivalent we are in gross ethical violation. When we use such exercises at the wrong point on the U or design protocols that undermine and dismiss actual real world evidence, we are in further trouble. There is too much evidence on the table being suppressed through gold standard selective hyperskepticism fallacies, for there to be the sort of conclusion that is being pushed on already ethically challenged protocols of testing. I have already called attention to the Kennedy School remarks. the persistent refusal to reckon with them seriously tells us a lot. KFkairosfocus_{June 10, 2020
June
06
Jun
10
10
2020
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Jerry - why are they irrelevant? They are all RCTs, and RHampton7 wrote "Just look at the RCT studies.". Providing links to RCTs when suggesting you look at RCTs does seem to be relevant.Bob O'H_{June 10, 2020
June
06
Jun
10
10
2020
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

RHampton, You posted four irrelevant links to support your point which means you provided no basis for your assertions. You don’t seem to understand the issues surrounding this virus.jerry_{June 10, 2020
June
06
Jun
10
10
2020
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

Many more RCTs are in the pipeline, with results due later this year. For example, https://actgnetwork.org/studies/a5395/rhampton7_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

Sanford Health announced Friday, June 5 that the South Dakota hydroxychloroquine trial has been discontinued. According to a Sanford Health release, it was cut after new research finds the drug was not helping prevent COVID-19. The results of that research by the University of Minnesota was published in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this week. It was one of the country’s first randomized trials of the drug. Sandford’s release stated that the university study was similar to the South Dakota trial and “found no benefit of hydroxychloroquine over a placebo as a post-exposure preventative therapy.” “After closely reviewing the new research, our clinical trial team determined that the South Dakota study is unlikely to see different results,” said Dr. Susan Hoover, Sanford Health infectious disease doctor and principal investigator of the study. “We’re focused on our goal of advancing the science around this disease and will continue to pursue other COVID-19 research.” https://www.kotatv.com/content/news/Sanford-Health-halts-South-Dakota-hydroxychloroquine-study-571048331.htmlrhampton7_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

A second large postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) trial has come up empty as well, its leader tells Science. Carried out in Barcelona, Spain, that study randomized more than 2300 people exposed to the virus to either hydroxychloroquine or the usual care. There was no significant difference between the number of people in each group who developed COVID-19, says Oriol Mitjà of the Germans Trias i Pujol University Hospital. Mitjà says he has submitted the results for publication. The data are important because they come from large randomized trials. So far, most data came from small trials or case series. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/three-big-studies-dim-hopes-hydroxychloroquine-can-treat-or-prevent-covid-19rhampton7_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days. We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was ?2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, ?7.0 to 2.2; P=0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported. After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638rhampton7_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Professor Peter Horby and Professor Martin Landray, chief investigators of the RECOVERY Trial, said ‘In March this year, RECOVERY was established as a randomised clinical trial to test a range of potential drugs for COVID-19, including hydroxycholoroquine. ‘The trial has proceeded at unprecedented speed, enrolling over 11,000 patients from 175 NHS hospitals in the UK. Throughout this time, the independent Data Monitoring Committee has reviewed the emerging data about every two weeks to determine if there is evidence that would be strong enough to affect national and global treatment of COVID-19. ‘On Thursday 4 June, in response to a request from the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the independent Data Monitoring Committee conducted a further review of the data. Last night, the Committee recommended the chief investigators review the unblinded data on the hydroxychloroquine arm of the trial. ‘A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes. ‘These data convincingly rule out any meaningful mortality benefit of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Full results will be made available as soon as possible. https://www.recoverytrial.net/files/hcq-recovery-statement-050620-final-002.pdfrhampton7_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

I’ve posted the results before in other threads, but you probably dismissed them out of hand.rhampton7_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

Just look at the RCT studies. Go ahead. I can post the results if you wish
I am not aware of any relevant studies. So post a few for us to discuss. You may want to look at this first https://bit.ly/3hcbTQo
He revealed that at a recent Chatham House top secret, closed door meeting attended by experts only, the editors of both, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine expressed their exasperation citing the pressures put on them by pharmaceutical companies. He states that each of the editors used the word “criminal” to describe the erosion of science... “If this continues, we are not going to be able to publish any more clinical research data because pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful; they are able to pressure us to accept papers that are apparently methodologically perfect, but their conclusion is what pharmaceutical companies want.”... A media blitz against hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) created panic: clinical trials aimed at testing hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 were suspended by International public health institutions including the World Health Organization the UK government regulatory agency and the French government.
But maybe all this is propaganda too.jerry_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

Just look at the RCT studies. Go ahead. I can post the results if you wishrhampton7_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Jerry @4, Thank you for that YT link. Christians should keep in mind that not all Jews are globalists, propagandists and truth suppressors. Most orthodox Jews, the ones who believe in their God Yahweh, do not subscribe to the subversive agenda of their secular brethren. Dr Zelenko is one of them. Zelenko: "Science is no longer about finding truth in America or the world. It's nothing more than a tool for a false narrative." https://youtu.be/JfSRRhlto2g?t=341FourFaces_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Sev, MOST is a key term, where this is really a form of the pessimistic induction on the long term life of theories. KFkairosfocus_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Sev@3 Heh! That was actually one of my first thoughts as I began the article ";^) The "All Cretans are liars" problem. But of course Loannidis' article isn't research so much as a review of statistics and how to, and not to, set up a research study. I've always found it "interesting" how few scientists actually know how to do science.Latemarch_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Dr Zelenko strikes again. Top People (whoever they are) will also miss this. https://bit.ly/2YeOkO0 Download the Youtube video before it disappears. Zelenko with some other professionals started a website for crowdsourcing medical information. https://bit.ly/2XQlIff Can't wait for the hit pieces and irrelevant comments.jerry_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

Latemarch @ 2
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Does that include Ioannidis's findings?Seversky_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False An enlightening article which lists bias as one of the big problems.Latemarch_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply