5 ms·
That one's being attacked as we speak for certain poor controls on testing. This could lead to a compromised dataset and invalidating the whole thing.
by kevin_b_er 6y ago
That one's being attacked as we speak for certain poor controls on testing. This could lead to a compromised dataset and invalidating the whole thing.
- lbeltrame 6y agoYes, I've read the limitations of the paper (after the Lancet debacle, I too learned my lesson and read a little more thoroughly). I believe it was done the best they could, given that UMN had to use very little money for it (~100K USD, as far as I understand). That's why IMO the limitations need to be fully read and understood. But I think it was done in good faith (unlike the Lancet study): the PI tried to his best to avoid spilling the beans until it was published to avoid sensationalism, and at the same time, he signed the open letter against the Lancet paper (after he sent the paper for review, so he knew the results already). Larger studies will likely be needed. It's clear that the effect size (if any exists) is quite small, like with remedisivir.