We note that the Twitter
personality here has previously taken a public position that treatment is
ineffective. The result of a false negative (incorrectly finding the treatment
to be ineffective) here is significantly more death. It is possible that such
Twitter personalities may have an incentive to attack signs of efficacy
(indeed, they do attack signs of efficacy in general, not just our
study - see sciencebasedmedicine.org/hydroxychloroquine..cant-seem-to-kill-it/
Did not contact us.
Author has never
contacted us, questioning their interest in accurate reporting.
Copy-paste of Twitter feeds making false
The main premise of the blog here seems to be
copy-pasting Twitter feeds with false statements. The first one falsely claims
"disinformation" with no evidence (the claim appears to be based on the author
feeling the web site looks professional so therefore it must be fake).
cherry-picks <10% of studies (which have major flaws including inapplicable
study domain), in order to claim a lack of efficacy.
Cherry-picking government actions.
blog cherry-picks government responses from one country to make claims
unsupported by either data or by many other countries.
Incorrect unsupported accusation of
The blog makes an extremely serious and false
accusation, presenting no related information.
Falsely claims this is retrospective
Groups are assigned in advance, irrespective of patient medical
Claims revising papers is bad.
claims that revising papers based on feedback is somehow bad and seemingly
uses this to support their claim of "astroturfing".
presents out-of-context snippets to assert that the semantics of language
related to the trial is not perfect. However, when reading from the title and
first sentence of the abstract, it is not possible to make the
Incorrect claims on RCTs.
claims the following RCT confirms the treatment is ineffective, for example:
an Internet survey RCT with unknown survey bias, an unknown percentage of fake
responses, that shows a combined result that is more likely positive than
negative, and that shows a statistically significant treatment delay-response
Incorrectly claims no trial.
claims there is no trial here, but there is a medication being trialled.
Incorrectly claims not prospective.
blog claims the trial is not prospective, but the group assignments were made
Incorrectly claims not randomized.
blog claims the study is not randomized but for a person it is random
which group they get, unrelated to their medical status.
The blog takes
ideological positions about treatment or interventions, like "antimasking" or
"hcq believers". We believe there is no place for this in science.
The blog complains
about informed consent, those complaints should be directed to the decision
makers implementing the trial.
Irrelevent ecological fallacy
Talks a lot about ecological fallacy (you cannot directly
infer the properties of individuals from the average of a group), however the
study does not do this.
Sample size claims.
random Twittter account, claims the sample size should be 36 when the actual
number of deaths alone is much larger.
Incorrectly claims France is left out.
France was not left out.
Incorrectly claims cherry-picking.
Claims cherry-picking but the criteria are clear and about 200 references
support the assignments.
Incorrectly claims lack of control for
Authors did not read the study which specifically
Incorrect claim based on assuming all other
authors statements are correct.
Claims a problem where one of ~80
studies in the literature review has a comment mismatching the original author
comment. It does mismatch the original author comment, but that doesn't make
Incorrect comment on mask exclusions.
Copy-pasting another random Twitter account that didn't read the paper, which
misinterprets the mask/low spread exclusions (masks are used to some degree in
a majority of countries).
Random claims about the authors.
seemingly random implications about the authors.