[RedState] Last week, Lancet had to retract the most highly-touted hydroxychloroquine study to date, which was used as evidence for entire countries to change their stance on the drug. The study, which was obviously flawed on its face (I commented well before it was exposed that the groupings made no sense), turned out to be produced by a shell company, with unverified data gathered by non-scientists.
| Whether giving people 3x the usual dosage of most other studies played a part is now a very real question. |
But when that study flopped, another study was immediately latched onto. It’s called the RECOVERY trials and was done in the UK. Supposedly, this study was the counter to the fake study published by Lancet. It was the proof that "well yeah, that other study was bad, but this one got the same results." Well, not so much.
Edmund Fordham wrote a piece on what is an emerging controversy, in which it appears the lead of the RECOVERY trial took hydroxychloroquine for another drug, resulting in a high death rate. |