The Lancet has retracted the study which concluded the anti-malaria drug hydroxychlorine raised the risk of cardiac issues.
It seems that President Trump may well have been correct on April 4th when he commented about the drug: "What do you have to lose? Take it."
Even if it did no harm whatsoever and in fact, made you smell more manly and regrew bald spots, it would still be pointless and stupid to tout a drug that has no therapeutic value as a cure for Covid-19.
It gets lost in the shuffle that the Trump-driven mania for this drug has made it MUCH harder for the people who actually need it to get it.
Trump's cavalier "what do you have to lose" comment is irresponsible and wrong. You do, in fact, have much to lose from taking any drug--and with no conferred benefits, the risk is pointless.
Originally posted by: Don
The Lancet has retracted the study which concluded the anti-malaria drug hydroxychlorine raised the risk of cardiac issues.
It seems that President Trump may well have been correct on April 4th when he commented about the drug: "What do you have to lose? Take it."
The Lancet...again? They either need to clean house or close up shop.
Originally posted by: Candy Wright
The Lancet...again? They either need to clean house or close up shop.
Actually, I'd have more faith in a source that issues a retraction than one that just throws shit out there that it knows is absolute horse pucky.
Acknowledging that a conclusion previously reached was incorrect is at the very heart of science. It's humility--which Trump, Fox "News," and the rest of the bunch could learn from.
No, Kevin. The Lancet didn't just print a study that later studies show different conclusions. That's the nature of research. That's why multiple studies are better than one study. That doesn't require a retraction.
They failed Research 101 on this one, allowing flawed, i.e. rushed, unproven, miscalculated, whatever data to pass their supposedly rigorous reviewers. The researchers who submitted this data were probably under the "publish or perish" onus.
And weren't you one of those who gloated over the earlier flawed information that came out?
Originally posted by: Candy Wright
No, Kevin. The Lancet didn't just print a study that later studies show different conclusions. That's the nature of research. That's why multiple studies are better than one study. That doesn't require a retraction.
They failed Research 101 on this one, allowing flawed, i.e. rushed, unproven, miscalculated, whatever data to pass their supposedly rigorous reviewers. The researchers who submitted this data were probably under the "publish or perish" onus.
And weren't you one of those who gloated over the earlier flawed information that came out?
I don't know what you're referring to that I was supposedly "gloating" about.
The point I was making zoomed way over your head. The Trump wonder drug doesn't work. Even if it's otherwise totally innocuous, billions of dollars and millions of man-hours of researcher time were diverted to that rabbit hole. And why? Because our Idiot-in-Chief babbled about it during one of his press conference ass-pulls.
I'll instruct you a bit, though, Candy. I know quite a bit about the research journal process, because it's closely aligned with my profession. A journal reviewer has no way to ascertain the veracity of the data that was used in a study. That's something that the reviewer has to assume. Therefore, occasionally, a journal will find out something about a previously published study that was not evident when the journal accepted it for publication. It's up to the journal to decide what to do in that case--issue a correction, issue a retraction, etc.
Where you fail is in saying that the Lancet reviewed the data. They didn't. They couldn't. They had the REPORT of the data--not the data itself.
Kevin does not know shit. He lies and makes crap up all the time. When called out about his asinine lies, he deflects while denegrating those who catch him lying.
I think Don and David should get all the hydroxychlorine they want. If they want to eat a five-gallon bucket full of hydroxychlorine every morning for brekfast, I don't object.
I do note three hydroxychlorine studies have now been terminated because too many of the patients died or developed serious heart conditions. Yes, by all means, conservatives take as much hydroxychlorine as you want as a show your fealty to your tangerine god. I suppose dying of a heart attack is the lesser evil than getting a matching hairdo like Miss Lindsey.
Originally posted by: Candy Wright
The Lancet...again? They either need to clean house or close up shop.
Please. What do you REALLY know about The Lancet?
After all, they don't have recipes in their issues...
The toad asks - "Please. What do you REALLY know about The Lancet?
After all, they don't have recipes in their issues.." ----------------------------------------------------- One could ask - " Please. What do you really know about the Las Vehas Advisor Forums? After all, they have the toad, ms. selfie, Mark, dealer 1,and Kevin posting lies and discontent daily...
