The p-value point is a misunderstanding of the problem with small samples (it's not all about 'significance'). This is mirrored in the response to point 5 - this sample is FAR too small to run a multivariable logistic regression, all you'd get is noise if you adjusted
I always find that attitude striking. HCQ was recommended on the same basis, and with arguably much better evidence, and now we know it doesn't work at all and we've wasted vast sums and potentially harmed millions. It is not such an easy either/or, I think
-
-
HCQ was exactly how not to do science. No RCT, no history of effectiveness against respiratory viruses, no multiple correlation studies, no causal models, no clear mechanism of action. It's like rejecting vaccines, because doctors once used leeches and it failed.
-
The HCQ proponents would argue precisely the opposite. And vitamin D has a long, long history of being touted as a cure for every disease under the sun and failing to show a benefit in rigorous RCTs
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.