Media: please plug into the scientific community and its current pre- *and* post- peer review process before running with the headlines. Remember my warning about the Lancet study on HCQ harms? Even more questions about it now. Wait. For. RCTs. To. End.https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1264671101587804172 …
-
Show this thread
-
Article with many questions about that observational Lancet study alleging harms from hydroxychloroquine. This doesn't mean there are no harms, but a randomized trial was stopped and checked and none was found. It also doesn't mean it's beneficial. Wait!https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/mysterious-company-s-coronavirus-papers-top-medical-journals-may-be-unraveling …
1 reply 7 retweets 39 likesShow this thread -
Despite many alarmist headlines and the polarized social media chatter about hydroxychloroquine, many scientists from top institutions questioned that Lancet study because.. well, there were questions. There's a process. It is messy but it does bend toward empirical validity.
1 reply 6 retweets 50 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted T. K. Rengarajan 🇺🇸
Yes, it's hard to stop him from hijacking people's minds. But important to try. Recent reporting and social media reaction on hydroxychloroquine has been less than stellar, and has actually harmed our ability to understand potential harms or benefits.https://twitter.com/trengarajan/status/1268162690570051584 …
zeynep tufekci added,
2 replies 4 retweets 29 likesShow this thread -
Here we go. That Lancet study on hydroxychloroquine may well be retracted. Folks, many scientists *warned* about this study as soon as it was published. Peer review catches most crap, and we also catch what gets through. Wait. Listen. Don't sensationalize. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine …
4 replies 39 retweets 87 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted zeynep tufekci
Besides the fact that the Lancet HCQ study was observational with glaring problems of controlling for severity, a randomized trial on HCQ was unblinded as a result and found no harms. That's a very loud signal. I tried to warn and got a lot of push-back.https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1264671101587804172 …
zeynep tufekci added,
zeynep tufekciVerified account @zeynepPeople 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 …Show this thread4 replies 8 retweets 32 likesShow this thread -
Just like the non evidence-based beach/park shaming, the sensationalized & rushed reporting of and social media reaction to potential HCQ harms will do enormous harm to what we do need: more science, but one that is seen through a messy but now strikingly robust and fast process.
4 replies 5 retweets 46 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted LeonardJamesAkaar 🧢
Find the people who didn't; find the people who try to fight their own instincts and ideological priors; find the people who admit errors. The last one might be the most important. Errors are unavoidable. It's the process that works, not any single stance.https://twitter.com/LJAkaar67/status/1268185055546900480 …
zeynep tufekci added,
LeonardJamesAkaar 🧢 @LJAkaar67Replying to @zeynepWhat I find notable and depressing was how eagerly and rapidly scientists (and pundits with some amount of scientific background) were to jump all in on "HCQ is worthless or harmful" -- a real demonstration of the harms and errors of mixing one's politics with one's science4 replies 11 retweets 58 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
The findings of the study were compelling- not 100%, but 90% or so. Unless it was faked. That's the issue here. If we take the position that observational studies are worthless, we have to throw out a lot of science. If an RCT is revealed as fake, does that make RCTs worthless?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mgubrud
Nope. There were already significant issues which many scientists pointed out—and even published an open letter. The data was weird. Severity not properly controlled for. That the unblinded RCT study did not find harms was loud signal to anyone who understood a bit of statistics.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes
That’s why it’s important not to jump to quick conclusions, especially from observational studies that have a history of being overturned because of severity-related confounding. But that would require patience, listening to the scientific community and stats literacy. Too rare.
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.