Replies

There is lack of critical disease indicators un-like in almost every other study, that’s why it looks so uniform: no CT scan, no body temp, no resp rate, no paO2/FiO2 ratio. Just above or below 94% sats and qSOFA . Now let me point out that using 94% spO2 as binary cut off will give you very wrong results, thats an example of just ONE misuse of an indicator. There is a very big difference between a patient with 93% O2 sat, and someone who is 80% but they are both under 94% cut off in this study! No other studies use so little and such coarse indicators, low-fidelity indicators of disease. Also pay attention that not only is the mortality almost double, the intubation and ventilator use is also more than double for HCQ group, that has nothing to do with HCQ - HCQ doesn’t affect respiratory function, it has to do with indicator bias, for which the Lancet study failed to control. Here are some links going in depth:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRJxr01VKOdUDSgXfGks6TMnhOF4csQ1sYhmlVGLpandXrhCi6nNV6Ig7wrBNcdril4izIGmpASAGuD/pub

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1264251404232855552.html

The evidence of mistakes are right there in the study, if you pay close attention! But neither media or officials, will they just take the Journal word for it.

That is a good point, that HCQ’s “risk factors” are heart-related, and using HCQ wouldn’t lead to a greater pulminary response, so the fact that there WAS a greater response indicates that they did not appropriately control. They are aware that in many hospitals, the drug is given to the more serious cases, but they don’t seem to ahve controlled successfully for that.