|
|
|
|
|
|
by majos
2284 days ago
|
|
|
I really want this study to be legit, but there are a few more weird things: 1. the evidence-free claim of “full peer review”, 2. the fact that patients who refused or met “exclusion criteria” for the drug served as a portion of the control group, and were the only members of the control group from the same region as the experimental group, 3. the removal of people from the experiment group because they went to the ICU or died (only three of first and one of second, but a rather bizarre thing to happen before claiming 100% cure), 4. the lack of coverage from any major news source, despite this being reported about a day ago. |
|
|
- The twitter guy makes the peer review claim, and i think it's wrong. he is not an author of the paper or affiliated with them, he's just shilling it to elon musk for reasons.
- regionality isn't something i'd considered. I can understand the exclusion group being the control in exeptional cases, like a global pandemic.
- of more concern to me are the either confusing or cargo-culted figures at the end. what in the world is a t- and p value column doing next to age data? why are there nominal p-values per day of administration?
- there might not be coverage, but merck is shipping a boatload of the stuff anyway: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/bayer-preps-u-s-donation...