>>9312060 (pb)
>>9311804 (pb)
>>9311942 (pb)
Dr Raoult knows his stuff. Here's another critique of the Lancet paper, this one from a Dr. Phillips.
---
Dr. Steven phillips, MD debunks The Lancet's newest hit piece on HCQ
https://twitter.com/StevephillipsMD/status/1263899565654265857
Another poorly designed interpretation of a #HCQ data set for #COVID19. A larger poorly designed "trial" only leads to larger erroneous conclusions. For analysis, see the thread.
About 2/3 of patients were from N. America. Unlike Asia and Europe, we haven't had access to early #C19 testing & quick turn around times. By the time patients get to the hospital, 5-7 days have typically gone by, results have been taking about 4 days, & add 48 hours to that.
Unlike parts of Europe & Asia, #HCQ early #COVID19 treatment isn't embraced in the US. It's given only to the sickest patients, without contrary evidence in this study. To state that the baseline disease severity between treatment & control is equal was incorrect, here's why:
The authors provide almost no data to assess disease severity at baseline between groups. They rely on qSOFA which in a study in Annals of Intensive Care, was found to be "...not appropriate to identify Covid-19 patients to have poor outcomes..."
I agree with one thing the authors said: "Randomized clinical trials will be required before any conclusion can be reached regarding benefit or harm of these agents in COVID-19 patients." Actually, #HCQ RCT's have been done & they show benefits, but we need more of them.