Hydroxychloroquine Update | Hacker News Reader

Hydroxychloroquine Update

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu

20 points7d7n12 comments

Open articleView on HN

Discussion of the paper when it was posted and promoted by various news outlets:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23272222

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23273615

basically the most recent study of 96,000 people is alleged to be based on fabricated data...

https://defyccc.com/anti-hcq-paper-in-the-lancet-uses-fabric...

defyccc spews climate change denialist propaganda. Why should I put more weight on an article from them than in The Lancet?

Because the Lancet has a bad reputation for publishing poor quality research:

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/25/this-contr...

Edit: I'm not saying denyccc is good! I'm pointing out that Lancet is bad too. Lancet has killed more people with its decade long defense of the Wakefield autism vaccine hoax than all the good it has done with its legitimate research.

Weight? Is that like belief? Note the authors admit the data is unavailable.

that defyccc link was from a comment in the OP's post, there are other links from the same source site:

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/24/doubts-abo...

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/25/hydroxychl...

defyccc is barely this side of Alex Jones with their conspiracy theorizing absurd caricatures:

They invented a theory that CO2 is called a "greenhouse gas" because farmers use CO2 in fertilizer, not because it increases temperature like a greenhouse and then without any source attribute that theory to climate scientists.

https://defyccc.com/cult-of-climate-change/

An open letter to Mehra et al and The Lancet: https://zenodo.org/record/3865253

Link was more informative when the domain was andrewgelman.com

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/25/this-contr...

Edit: Gelman has posted 3 articles on this topic in the past 2 days. (The guy is prolific! He also publishes about 1 paper per month over his decades long career)

Tangents:

What is all this?

> The beauty-and-sex-ratio research, the ovulation-and-voting research, embodied cognition, himmicanes, ESP, air rage, Bible Code, the celebrated work of Andrew Wakefield, the Evilicious guy, the gremlins dude—all peer-reviewed.

Laundry list of utterly bogus papers that were published and not retracted or not due years where the authors probabky also doubled down on un-reproduceable garbage.

Wakefield published papers on the link between vaccines and autism, do example (I believe, mercifully not familiar with it),

The point being that Andrew Gelman doesn't seem to have an agenda. The Lancet paper looks unconvincing to him and his gang of stats nerds who read and post there.

The WHO are convinced, however. Should they be given the data is closed and appears suspect. (Maybe it isn't, but how do we know that for sure, when it looks really odd..?)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/25/who-world-heal...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com