2 ms·

I've read a debunking of that as well, which was basically that the study uses poisonously high levels of HCQ (much higher than normal or required), and that it

• jerf 5y ago
  This is a distressingly common technique for making studies say what you want them to say. I've dug into several dietary studies over the years claiming how this or that diet is good or bad for you, and a lot of them basically involve feeding the worst-possible $DIET_X to one set of mice and the best possible $DIET_Y to the other, and lo, $DIET_Y wins. So, for instance, you can feed a "low carb" diet that fills in the fats with a ton of transfats or with good fats, and you can feed a "high carb" diet that has a lot of whole grains or has a whole lot of bleached, refined flour, and produce whichever results you want. This is a non-trivial part of the reason why "peer reviewed" studies keep continuously putting out what seems like contradictory results. Unfortunately, it means just "trusting a peer reviewed study" is even harder than it should be. You have to dig into the study to see if it even makes any sense which can be very difficult. And you have to follow the money, not "even" if the study says what you think it ought to say, but especially when it says what you want it to say. Very disappointing when you go digging in.