So....you’re saying the report wasn’t released ANYWHERE? Or just not in your journal-of-preference? Hint: The link for the paper/report is in the very first link-cite in this article.
Gaffer wrote: “So....you’re saying the report wasn’t released ANYWHERE? Or just not in your journal-of-preference? Hint: The link for the paper/report is in the very first link-cite in this article.”
It has been released. Now why do you think that it wasn’t submitted for peer review?
Are you aware that Kirsch started Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF)?
Perhaps you’re not aware that “In May, all 12 members of CETF’s scientific advisory board resigned, citing his alarming dangerous claims and erratic behavior. Over the summer, the conflict reached his most recent startup, M10. Its board told him that if he wanted to remain part of the company he would have to stop making public anti-vaccine statements. In September, he resigned as CEO and gave up his board seat.”
And, there’s this: “What has alarmed many of the scientists associated with CETF, though, are Kirsch’s reactions to the work he’s funded—both successes and failures. He’s refused to accept the results of a hydroxychloroquine trial that showed the drug had no value in treating covid, for instance, instead blaming investigators for poor study design and statistical errors.”
That should give you pause and question why this paper hasn’t been submitted for peer review. What is Kirsch fearful of?