Low quality science by a hydroxychloroquine skeptic–well, he’s just in med school

The article in question is mainly about ivermectin, but also mentions hydroxychloroquine: “Further research has suggested it was never effective in the first place, but this incident showed the power of political discourse around treatments.”

Let’s just focus on one thing…did this author investigate the links in his main source which he used to support his opinion about the supposed ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine? (The title of the main source is “Updates on Hydroxychloroquine in Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19.) Apparently not. Let’s look at one claim from his main source and then the links in the article.

“Randomized trials published in high-quality peer-reviewed journals, which provide the most reliable evidence to detect the most plausible small to moderate effects, have shown disappointing results.” Wouldn’t you expect the links following this statement to connect to RCT studies of hydroxychloroquine? So what are the links to? Let’s use the link footnote numbers from the main source article to associate with the link descriptions.

3. “Hydroxychloroquine for Coronavirus: The Urgent Need for a Moratorium on Prescriptions”…hmm…this is a letter…not a RCT…an opinion, not a trial report…low quality…it should not be a footnote for the original article’s claim about RCTs

4. “Hydroxychloroquine, a less toxic derivative of chloroquine, is effective in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro”…hmm…this is about an in vitro study…not a RCT…why is it a footnote for the original article’s claim about RCTs?

5. “Statistical Association and CausationContributions of Different Types of Evidence”…hmm…this is an opinion about types of evidence…not a RCT…???

6. “Epidemiology in medicine”…a textbook about epidemiology…not a RCT…is there an echo in here?

So, the referenced paper contains numerous footnote errors about the main point, which is question of the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. The article is therefore low quality and should be withdrawn or corrected, but the med student author obviously hadn’t actually checked the references. Didn’t do his homework. How typical of the hydroxychloroquine skeptics and vaccine proponents.

This major error by the med student doesn’t cause me to want to look at his stuff any further.

If he pulls this crap in his med school–not checking references–any competent attending would ream him.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: