4 ms·

This is a collection of links with arbitrary ratings from anonymous authors. A propaganda piece. Here is a real meta-analysis.. https://www.bmj.com/content/37

by lucd 6y ago

This is a collection of links with arbitrary ratings from anonymous authors. A propaganda piece. Here is a real meta-analysis.. https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2980 https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2980

jdoliner 6y ago
What makes you say the ratings are arbitrary? Can you point to any of the papers in which the rating is out of sync with the conclusion of the linked paper?
- lucd 6y ago
  No methodology, anonymous authors, no peer-reviewing, related to the account @covidanalysis, which is known to push pro-hcq propaganda.. Are you kidding? Why should we waste time with this propaganda piece while there are real scientific papers available? No methodology, anonymous authors, no peer-reviewing, related to the account @covidanalysis, which is known to push pro-hcq propaganda.. Are you kidding? Some smart French guy debunked this site https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1284493669895041024.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1284493669895041024.html And c19trials, another disinformation piece from the same authors.. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1291126570392924160.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1291126570392924160.html
  - jdoliner 6y ago
    I'm not sure what you're saying. Every paper has named authors listed next to it. And it explicitly states which ones have been peer-reviewed and which haven't (most, but not all, have been). Clicking through gets you full papers in the medical journals they were published in which includes the methodology.
    - lucd 6y ago
      Please tell me who are the authors of the website you mentioned and tell me what is the methodology they used for selecting the studies and rating them.
      - jdoliner 6y ago
        I think that's a somewhat valid criticism. However, everything the site claims is something that you can verify for yourself by simply clicking the links they offer. This doesn't account for studies that should be in this list, but aren't. I'd be interested in hearing about which studies those are. I think given that Doctors such as Simone Gold are being fired simply for stating that there's scientific evidence that HCQ can treat Covid-19 it's somewhat expected that sites such as this will be done anonymously.
        lucd 6y ago
        Where was Simone Gold fired from? If you look at her LinkedIn profile she is working as a concierge physician for 9 years, she worked as a congressional fellow.. never worked as an emergency physician. Claiming to have been fired is part of her whistle-blower narrative.. https://www.linkedin.com/in/simone-gold-md-jd-4636a87 https://www.linkedin.com/in/simone-gold-md-jd-4636a87 Only a fool or someone just looking for confirmation would take an anonymous sham of meta-analysis seriously.

by lucd 6y ago

jdoliner 6y ago

What makes you say the ratings are arbitrary? Can you point to any of the papers in which the rating is out of sync with the conclusion of the linked paper?

lucd 6y ago
No methodology, anonymous authors, no peer-reviewing, related to the account @covidanalysis, which is known to push pro-hcq propaganda.. Are you kidding? Why should we waste time with this propaganda piece while there are real scientific papers available? No methodology, anonymous authors, no peer-reviewing, related to the account @covidanalysis, which is known to push pro-hcq propaganda.. Are you kidding? Some smart French guy debunked this site https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1284493669895041024.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1284493669895041024.html And c19trials, another disinformation piece from the same authors.. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1291126570392924160.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1291126570392924160.html
- jdoliner 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you're saying. Every paper has named authors listed next to it. And it explicitly states which ones have been peer-reviewed and which haven't (most, but not all, have been). Clicking through gets you full papers in the medical journals they were published in which includes the methodology.
  - lucd 6y ago
    Please tell me who are the authors of the website you mentioned and tell me what is the methodology they used for selecting the studies and rating them.
    - jdoliner 6y ago
      I think that's a somewhat valid criticism. However, everything the site claims is something that you can verify for yourself by simply clicking the links they offer. This doesn't account for studies that should be in this list, but aren't. I'd be interested in hearing about which studies those are. I think given that Doctors such as Simone Gold are being fired simply for stating that there's scientific evidence that HCQ can treat Covid-19 it's somewhat expected that sites such as this will be done anonymously.
      - lucd 6y ago
        Where was Simone Gold fired from? If you look at her LinkedIn profile she is working as a concierge physician for 9 years, she worked as a congressional fellow.. never worked as an emergency physician. Claiming to have been fired is part of her whistle-blower narrative.. https://www.linkedin.com/in/simone-gold-md-jd-4636a87 https://www.linkedin.com/in/simone-gold-md-jd-4636a87 Only a fool or someone just looking for confirmation would take an anonymous sham of meta-analysis seriously.