Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Texas
Related: About this forumGOP state Sen. Bob Hall urged the use of the unproven hydroxychloroquine treatment for COVID-19.
Texas GOP state Sen. Bob Hall urged the use of the unproven hydroxychloroquine treatment for COVID-19. Now he's spreading misinformation about vaccines.
Link to tweet
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 726 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GOP state Sen. Bob Hall urged the use of the unproven hydroxychloroquine treatment for COVID-19. (Original Post)
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2021
OP
Post overstates study's '200%' finding on hydroxychloroquine's power vs COVID-19
LetMyPeopleVote
Jun 2021
#4
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)1. He looks like a flaming asshole and an idiot!!! n/t
Deacon Blue
(252 posts)2. Let's See...GQP, Texas State Senator...
Yep! Flaming idiot asshole CONFIRMED.
keithbvadu2
(36,811 posts)3. Do he and his family/staff use it?
Do he and his family/staff use it?
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,274 posts)4. Post overstates study's '200%' finding on hydroxychloroquine's power vs COVID-19
I saw this bullshit study being cited by some low IQ TFG supporters and knew that it was bogus. This study is so bad and poorly done that only a TFG supporter who is clueless as to science and the scientific process would cite it.
Link to tweet
For example, this is not a peer review study but was taken from a site that does not deal in peer review works
The study is posted on a website that publishes preprints studies that have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.....
The study was posted May 31 on medRxiv, a website that publishes studies that have not been fully vetted. This note is posted with the study: "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."
he website also says about its "preprint" or "unrefereed" articles: "Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified by peer review. In this process, the journals editors take advice from various experts called referees who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods and conclusions Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community."
The study was posted May 31 on medRxiv, a website that publishes studies that have not been fully vetted. This note is posted with the study: "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."
he website also says about its "preprint" or "unrefereed" articles: "Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified by peer review. In this process, the journals editors take advice from various experts called referees who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods and conclusions Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community."
The analysis concludes that this study is poorly designed and the conclusions are not supported. Politifact interviewed several real scientists who concluded that this study is flawed and should not be relied on (even by low IQ TFG supporters).
Here is the conclusion about this study
Our ruling
A widely shared social media post stated: "Study: hydroxychloroquine can boost COVID-19 survival chances by nearly 200%."
A study says a certain dosing of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin "improves survival by nearly 200%" among hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation, but the post exaggerates the findings significance.
The study is posted on a website that publishes studies that "have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community." Experts told PolitiFact the study is poorly designed and that no conclusion about cause and effect should be drawn from it.
For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False.
A widely shared social media post stated: "Study: hydroxychloroquine can boost COVID-19 survival chances by nearly 200%."
A study says a certain dosing of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin "improves survival by nearly 200%" among hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation, but the post exaggerates the findings significance.
The study is posted on a website that publishes studies that "have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community." Experts told PolitiFact the study is poorly designed and that no conclusion about cause and effect should be drawn from it.
For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False.
I am amused that the RWNJ believe that this study is meaningful.