People should stop making scary declarations about HCQ. As of yet, there is no evidence of harm. The observational studies are good to have, but there are actual randomized trials going on. They urgently checked and found *no* indication of harm, yet, and the trial is continuing.https://twitter.com/rfsquared/status/1264638707916832768 …
-
-
The only explanation for the results that a true RCT would eliminate is that some preselective bias caused people with a heightened risk of ventricular arrythmias to be placed on drugs known to be capable of increasing that risk. Yes, it could be so. Weirder things have happened.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Well I wish that people would’ve added that caveat when they posted the results of that large observational study.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Asking seriously, because I do not know: are the rcts in question sufficiently powered to detect the kind of harms that would be enough to counterindicate given the number of observations and time elapsed so far? This is distinct from whether they are powered to detect benefits.
-
The harms are required to be reported centrally partly for this reason. So they're powered to detect differential impact.
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.