The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
the results were that the the hazard ratios were higher for every intervention group that involved anything other than standard of care for corona virus koba 19 patients meaning hydroxychloroquine hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide antibiotic like erythromycin or is it through Meissen chloroquine and chloroquine with macrolide all of these hazard ratios are higher than 1 meaning that in those groups people did worse people did worse than no treatment
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
specifically this study in The Lancet on hydroxychloroquine and this is the one that I was on Newsmax talking about hydroxychloroquine a chloroquine with her without a macrolide for treatment of Cova 19 multi national registry analysis you can see this is quite a few patients 96 thousand patients and the results were that the the hazard ratios were higher for every intervention group that involved anything other than standard of care for corona virus koba 19 patients meaning hydroxychloroquine hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide antibiotic like erythromycin or is it through