This is a rather technical explanation Archived Message Posted by walter on June 4, 2020, 11:21 pm, in reply to "Lancet HCQ study is pulled" Maybe its to do with contractual issues and confidentialty. Could be a cover for crap analysis, or data fraud. Some background given earlier: https://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/msg/1591097733.html Including (especially) the link below. When posting this I missed out the technical questions. As I explained, this was because the authenticity of the study data and the company who produced it were coming under fire. This fire has engulfed the paper; as there were a host of other questions being asked, it might be worth looking at what else was being questioned, even if the data were correct: https://spectator.org/lancetgate-pulling-a-fast-one-on-proponents-of-hydroxychloroquine-and-chloroquine/ ------------------------------------------------ On May 28, 2020, dozens of eminent “clinicians, medical researchers, statisticians and ethicists from [universities and medical centers] across the world” addressed an open letter to the study’s authors and the editor of the Lancet in which they raised “both methodological and data integrity concerns.” Here are some of the highlights: The study’s authors did not indicate the “severity” of the disease being treated. Was it early on in the COVID-19 progression or late in the process? Similarly, they did not indicate the dosages of HCQ or CQ used. The authors have not adhered to “standard practices in the machine learning and statistics community. They have not released their code or data. There is no data/code sharing and availability statement in the paper.” There was no mention of the countries or hospitals from which the data were purportedly obtained, and the authors have denied requests for that information. The numbers of cases and deaths as well as the detailed data collection from Surgisphere-associated hospitals in Africa “seem unlikely.” Reported ratios of HCQ to CQ are “implausible.” The open letter then states that “it is imperative” that “Surgisphere provides details on data provenance” and that there be “independent validation” and “additional analyses” by “at least one other independent and respected institution” to “assess the validity of the [study’s] conclusions.” -------------------------------------------------- Well - all a bit reserved; A lot more was being asked around the world. One thing I found a little bit odd was that the three HCQ treatments had odds ratios nearly the same (about 1.3). In fact similar criticisms were raised about a lot of the baseline data. I remember seeing one that said something like how come the incidence of (eg) heart disease and other diseases was so close in each continent. The data had the appearance of being fiddled - that could have been due to some processing, and/or anonymizing. But that has to be verifiable and it seems that it wasn't. Another thing that was odd to me was that the authors were all cardiologists - none had worked in the treatment of Covid-19 patients. These couldn't be the best people to design this study. Due to the deep mist surrounding the data, it's not even clear if they did design it. If they were ghost writers they've given up the ghost. Message Thread: Lancet HCQ study is pulled - walter June 4, 2020, 10:41 pm This is a rather technical explanation - walter June 4, 2020, 11:21 pm Re: This is a rather technical explanation - walter June 4, 2020, 11:39 pm More distraction than explanation Walter - the Lancet study was a SHAM.. - David Macilwain June 5, 2020, 8:26 am Thanks David. I try to avoid pre-disposition when presenting evidence but its getting more difficult - walter June 5, 2020, 11:53 am What a surprise! NOM - Rhisiart Gwilym June 5, 2020, 12:42 am One of the Lancet co-authors is the chief executive of Surgisphere - walter June 5, 2020, 1:48 am Snake oil salesman - Mary June 5, 2020, 9:50 am   Searching