Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There’s no “major” flaw in his studies as people keep repeating. ah, yes, it's all perfect. smh https://www.les-crises.fr/the-tremendous-ethical-and-methodo...
I guess other studies are perfect and survived this level of scrutiny. Especially the "recovery" one, praised by everybody where the inclusion criteria was: "having flu like symptoms", without PCR. This is true science indeed. https://www.les-crises.fr/the-tremendous-ethical-and-methodo... 1. Why is this a major flaw? 2. As stated by the title. Remark: (Well conducted) RCTs introduce way too much variance. As a stati…
Yes, this update was around July. They found an IFR of .7% with patient treated with HCQ. Lower than the 1.2% mortality rate in eastern France. But wait! In august, the IFR of eastern France was calculated again and was found to be around .7% (+-.3%) too?
SO since august, the narrative changed: HCQ soes not prevent people from dying at all, but prevent them to carry a viral load important enough to contaminate other people as much. With no real study, as doing so would be unethical. Convenient.
Honestly if you followed the story as much as i did (and i did buy HCQ early on, as my boss was a fan and sold me on Raoult with daily update), it became more and more ridiculous, with the organ point was the IFR recalculation in august, when i told myself i should be ashamed to have willingly believed something this early, coming from someone who, as Bergame started dying and Colmar was being infected, stated that the virus would not be coming to France, then, as my cousin bagged the 18th body in his hospital, posted a video called "Coronavirus: Game Over!", later edited and renamed.