Covid and Didier Raoult (supporter of hydroxychloroquine): analyzes on the pandemic

[VetusLignum]

Much has happened since, and it is now undeniable that the treatment is working.
https://c19study.com/

I guess it's ironic because this deception has already been largely debunked
It dates from July:

This site contributes, in its own way, to nurturing this scientific cacophony since it selects favorable studies, distorts the results of negative studies and accepts all studies to classify them in the same level of proof (internet documents, pre- unpublished impressions).

Here is an example of skilfully orchestrated disinformation with a pleasant and refined design which shows very simply that Didier Raoult's protocol works, with percentages of disconcerting clarity.

The problem is that this kind of initiative goes beyond the critical analysis of each study.

Is it published or still in pre-printing?
Is this a retrospective study with a low level of evidence or an otherwise stronger randomized clinical trial?
Are the results and biases discussed for each study?
Conflicts of interest or ideological bias?
You will not learn any of this, because it is long, it is boring, and complicated, but it is in this way, and only in this way, that one can disseminate knowledge as honestly as possible.

This initiative thus crushes the diversity of scientific studies, the scientific limits of each, and makes it possible to distill a simplistic message that is easily understandable, but which does not reflect reality.

Because in this ball of contradictory studies, recent studies seriously weaken the track of effectiveness of the HCQ, in early phase.

https://www.dur-a-avaler.com/hydroxychl ... dictoires/
https://www.clubpoker.net/forum-poker/t ... /?page=181

Just click on the link to see that everything you write there is wrong.

[izentrop]

Here for once, a documentary which tells the truth, it becomes rare.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Here for once, a documentary which tells the truth, it becomes rare.

Understand: "For once, I agree with what is said in this document which tells my truth".

[ABC2019]

Just click on the link to see that everything you write there is wrong.

above all, you just have to click on the link to see that it is a catch-all accumulating everything that has come out without any critical eye on the quality of the studies ....

[VetusLignum]

Just click on the link to see that everything you write there is wrong.

above all, you just have to click on the link to see that it is a catch-all accumulating everything that has come out without any critical eye on the quality of the studies ....

This gives you the links to the studies in question, so if you have time you can judge for yourself. One of the main advantages of this approach is that it makes it possible to highlight numerous studies which have been carried out around the world (and not only in "western" countries), and which are often of much better quality than those we talk about all the time.

In addition, a recent and very pointed publication of the IHU, which is worth reading:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 21.1847640

[ABC2019]

Just click on the link to see that everything you write there is wrong.

above all, you just have to click on the link to see that it is a catch-all accumulating everything that has come out without any critical eye on the quality of the studies ....

This gives you the links to the studies in question, so if you have time you can judge for yourself. One of the main advantages of this approach is that it makes it possible to highlight numerous studies which have been carried out around the world (and not only in "western" countries), and which are often of much better quality than those we talk about all the time.

precisely, it does not make sense to make averages on failed studies in which there is no analysis of selection bias, and therefore the web page in question is faulty to do meta-analyzes and overall percentages on a bunch of indiscriminate analyzes. It's entirely possible that all the studies that show a clear effect are screwed up, and all the good studies show nothing.

A single, clean study is worth a lot more than 100 dirty studies.

[Janic]

A single, clean study is worth a lot more than 100 dirty studies.

so speaks the great specialist in dirty studies having no medical competence.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

[izentrop]

It is still absurd that a researcher who cheats on scientific publications since the beginning of his career was not denounced earlier.
We understand it in the documentary: Authoritarianism, threats, a lot of money diverted to pay lawyers and make political friendships.
Hopefully this case will change the rules to avoid this kind of excesses.

Here, a semblance of mea culpa, but we are used to https://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radi ... 43719.html

[pedrodelavega]

ya rock eel