4 ms·

This is really counter productive and snarky. How does this advance science? There have been multiple studies on this, and it has been a mixed bag. This one

This is really counter productive and snarky. How does this advance science? There have been multiple studies on this, and it has been a mixed bag. This one is positive: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32418114/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32418114/ There are others that are positive, and still others that are negative.

DanBC 6y ago
This award isn't about those other studies, it's about his choice to over-egg his research. > Subsequent analysis of Raoult’s data found that his sample size was incredibly small, with only 6 patients given the hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin combination. The study was also found to be improperly controlled, and data was excluded for a number of patients whose condition worsened as they were either transferred to intensive care, or died. Subsequent studies have shown no clinical benefit for the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19. > After Raoult’s study inspired a surge of interest in the use of hydroxychloroquine, [...] His not very good research caused huge amounts of interest in hydroxychloroquine and distracted attention from other, far more beneficial, treatment.
- tomohawk 6y ago
  You're going to fault a clinician working in a pandemic who has found an interesting result when all the experts are stumped?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- polotics 6y ago
  The Gilead stock options trading squad has been extremely good. Too bad for some livers, lives, and trust in science amongst many.
- leftyted 6y ago
  None of this makes his research "pseudoscience".
  - fbr 6y ago
    > Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence Can we claim that we have some evidence based on a sample of 6 people?
    - polotics 6y ago
      Yes you can! At least with russian roulette!
    - finndark 6y ago
      Sometimes. It depends on what you are observing and what the question is. E.g., if I'm in a room with others and see 6 people apparently fall over dead, then I will leave the room. Afterwards, if questioned, I will submit my observations as "evidence" that I was right to leave immediately.
- gadders 6y ago
  There was a study that was just as bad saying hydroxychloroquine was dangerous. Strange that they just chose to discredit this one...
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  If the small sample size and control method were include in the publication, which I believe they were, the blame lies with those who took the paper, claimed it was more than it was, and politicized the results. Im not sure I want to live in a world where doctors and scientists cant publish their data.
- finndark 6y ago
  DanBC says >"His not very good research caused huge amounts of interest in hydroxychloroquine and distracted attention from other, far more beneficial, treatment[s]."< And what, pray tell, were those "other, far more beneficial, treatment[s]."

DanBC 6y ago

This award isn't about those other studies, it's about his choice to over-egg his research. > Subsequent analysis of Raoult’s data found that his sample size was incredibly small, with only 6 patients given the hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin combination. The study was also found to be improperly controlled, and data was excluded for a number of patients whose condition worsened as they were either transferred to intensive care, or died. Subsequent studies have shown no clinical benefit for the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19. > After Raoult’s study inspired a surge of interest in the use of hydroxychloroquine, [...] His not very good research caused huge amounts of interest in hydroxychloroquine and distracted attention from other, far more beneficial, treatment.

tomohawk 6y ago
You're going to fault a clinician working in a pandemic who has found an interesting result when all the experts are stumped?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
polotics 6y ago
The Gilead stock options trading squad has been extremely good. Too bad for some livers, lives, and trust in science amongst many.
leftyted 6y ago
None of this makes his research "pseudoscience".
- fbr 6y ago
  > Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence Can we claim that we have some evidence based on a sample of 6 people?
  - polotics 6y ago
    Yes you can! At least with russian roulette!
  - finndark 6y ago
    Sometimes. It depends on what you are observing and what the question is. E.g., if I'm in a room with others and see 6 people apparently fall over dead, then I will leave the room. Afterwards, if questioned, I will submit my observations as "evidence" that I was right to leave immediately.
gadders 6y ago
There was a study that was just as bad saying hydroxychloroquine was dangerous. Strange that they just chose to discredit this one...
s1artibartfast 6y ago
If the small sample size and control method were include in the publication, which I believe they were, the blame lies with those who took the paper, claimed it was more than it was, and politicized the results. Im not sure I want to live in a world where doctors and scientists cant publish their data.
finndark 6y ago
DanBC says >"His not very good research caused huge amounts of interest in hydroxychloroquine and distracted attention from other, far more beneficial, treatment[s]."< And what, pray tell, were those "other, far more beneficial, treatment[s]."