I actually disagree with that claim, though. A single study can be fraudulent much, much more easily than a dozen of them can be. Yes, there are some soft endpoints, not a lot of placebos, many open-label studies, occasional vague reporting. Maybe focus on just mortality.
And I cannot see a single RCT that is of even reasonably good quality summarized there. Nor even a relatively strong observational study. Just the same kind of useless evidence that was so prevalent for HCQ earlier
-
-
ICON is a fairly strong observational study, as noted already. I am not sure why you are ignoring everything I respond with.
-
It is not...
- 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.