A meta-analysis of weak studies does not magically make their findings robust.
-
-
Can you explain why > 200 HCQ studies, the vast majority of which are positive (32 of the last 33 in fact), or why the IVM students, 100% of which are positive, are "weak"? You keep dodging all questions about the research to back these statements.
-
Science isn't about answers that cannot be questioned. It's about questions that haven't yet been answered.
End of conversation
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.