Read on Twitter
So I thought that I'd actually read the study ol' Gooey is hawking today and it's already off to an interesting start.
First seven pages of the opinion piece are mostly just discrediting studies on remdesivir (another competing drug in development). Reviews of literature typically do not start this way.
I'll be interested to see how his evaluation style changes when it comes to defending HCQ.
I'll be interested to see how his evaluation style changes when it comes to defending HCQ.
Discussion of the first study occurs 9 pages into the letter.
It notes that it was a non randomized or blinded trial, and also one of the weirdest instances of special pleading on sample size statistics I've ever seen.
It notes that it was a non randomized or blinded trial, and also one of the weirdest instances of special pleading on sample size statistics I've ever seen.
This is the entirety of the discussion on the second study. Again, reviews of the published literature are not typically written this way.
(Also contrast with the level of rigor against remdesivir a few posts up!)
(Also contrast with the level of rigor against remdesivir a few posts up!)
There's a lot left of this, but I feel like I don't need to make a full thread of it.
TL;DR, someone doing a press release for his opinion piece is suspect as all hell and I'm not surprised the rest of the Yale faculty felt the need to call him a chump. https://medium.com/@gregggonsalves/statement-from-yale-faculty-on-hydroxychloroquine-and-its-use-in-covid-19-47d0dee7b2b0
TL;DR, someone doing a press release for his opinion piece is suspect as all hell and I'm not surprised the rest of the Yale faculty felt the need to call him a chump. https://medium.com/@gregggonsalves/statement-from-yale-faculty-on-hydroxychloroquine-and-its-use-in-covid-19-47d0dee7b2b0
Oh right, here's a link to the letter in question: https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586
