20/n But if we look at the paper, this doesn't make sense Of the HCQ group, 22/75 had a persistent viral load Of the control, it was 19/75 If you work the odds ratio out, you get 1.22, i.e. 22% HIGHER FOR HCQpic.twitter.com/UcUqyc7t0x
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
31/n There is so much more I could look at here, but honestly you have to stop somewhere This study is riddled with flaws and almost certainly does not present an accurate estimate of the effect of HCQ or CQ
32/n If you want a decent summation of the evidence for/against HCQ, a good source is CEBM: "Current data do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19"https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/hydroxychloroquine-for-covid-19-what-do-the-clinical-trials-tell-us/ …
33/n I forgot to mention, the paper was received, revised, and accepted within a month While not unheard of, that's very quick for academic publishing!pic.twitter.com/UgR3WO2BPB
34/n In summation, the paper: - inadequately rates risk of bias - inappropriately combines estimates... - ...that may have been miscalculated It is hard to know what to make of this, except to say that the paper itself is not very useful in any way
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.