That strange decision to pre-judge the hospitalization risk (which is exactly what you are trying to discover and measure) decreases the event rate and the probability of the drug to show an effect.
Protocol deviations are always potential red flags.
-
-
Show this thread
-
The "Expected hospital stay <= 5 days" conditionality is nowhere to be seen in the original protocol.
Post-hoc data gerrymandering to allow a small win for Fluvoxamine and a miss for Ivermectin?
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Acovid19crusher%20full%20protocol&src=typed_query …Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Here’s an excerpt from the protocol. There is no mention of “expected hospital stay <=5 days.” Is this a protocol deviation or scientific misconduct?pic.twitter.com/ZbmU8Wt5Rg
-
Look at the published HCQ paper. Look at the exclusion criteria they claim in the paper. Look at the exclusion criteria in the protocol. See something strange?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I still get shocked by the language that gets approved by these journals when it is statistically incorrect: “no effect whatsoever” is very different from “insufficient evidence to accept hypothesis”. Ironically, even a bad IVM study shows a positive effect.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I noticed that too, ... but I had no idea what to make of it. At least it seemed consistent across the trials. So does that include both the "you'll be out soon" and the "not going to last a week" crowds?
/sThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wowza. If the original parameters didn’t expressly incorporate adaptive design, looks like the folks on the design committee have some explaining to do…preferably under oath.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.