Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

The Truth About Vaccines, page-12523

First 12523 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
fdKen

8,725 Posts.

71

28/07/21

10:56

Post #: 54832040
Share

Originally posted by maglincer: ↑

Lol youre still whining about being moderated for trolling are ya? Here you go.

https://hcqmeta.com/

"100% of the29 early treatment studies report a positiveeffect (13 statistically significant inisolation).
•Random effects meta-analysis withpooled effects using the most serious outcome reported shows66% improvement forthe 29 early treatment studies (RR0.34[0.24-0.49]). Results are similarafter exclusion based sensitivity analysis:67% (RR0.33[0.24-0.44]),and after restriction to 21 peer-reviewed studies:65% (RR0.35[0.25-0.47]).Restricting to the6 RCTsshows 46% improvement (RR 0.54[0.33-0.86]). Restricting to the13 mortalityresults shows 75% lowermortality (RR 0.25[0.16-0.40]).
•Late treatment is less successful,with only 69% of the183 studies reporting a positive effect. Verylate stage treatment is not effective and may be harmful, especially whenusing excessive dosages.
•The probability that an ineffectivetreatment generated results as positive as the265 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in247 trillion (p = 0.000000000000004).
•87% of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) forearly, PrEP, or PEP treatment report positive effects, the probability of thishappening for an ineffective treatment is0.0037.
•There is substantial evidence of bias towards publishing negative results.77% of prospective studies report positiveeffects, and only 72% of retrospectivestudies do. Studies from North America are 3.1times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of theworld combined, p = 0.0000000066.
•Negative meta analyses of HCQ generally choose a subsetof trials, focusing on late treatment, especially trials with very latetreatment and excessive dosages."

Expand

Not proper studies though are they
1 Upvote

Reply