“If” is not the right word to use. HcQ does not work, full stop.
If you really believe this, you should be able to respond to each of the points I raised in post #111. That you have not done so leads me to believe that you do not really want to investigate deeply; it is easier to say he has not been treated fairly than to look at the reality and discover the truth.
But I’m hoping you will actually move the discussion forward by genuinely dealing with post #111.
So one of the criticisms of HcQ was badly formulated. The problem was discovered, and good science prevailed.
Does this mean we should simply ignore all the other criticisms of Raoult’s paper? Is that how science is supposed to work?
Is it not true that good science also prevailed when Elsevier, the publisher of Raoult’s paper, stated the following:
This is a non-informative manuscript with gross methodological shortcomings [emphasis added]
Is it not true that good science also prevailed when PLOS One retracted Raoult’s 2013 paper because of problems with “integrity of data”?
Let me ask you a question, @Giltil: if one criticism of a paper is wrong and 10 criticisms are well justified, is the paper right or are the 10 critics right?
Why would you defend a paper that is labeled “a non-informative manuscript” with “gross methodological shortcomings” by its publisher?
How is it that one criticism that was proven ill-founded is even relevant (“so telling about this whole story”) when so many other criticisms obliterate the credibility of the Raoult’s HcQ research?
I do not understand why you insist on defending the indefensible, Gilbert.
The medical community has now developed a protocol of proven treatments for patients sick with COVID. I agree with you that doctors should follow this protocol.
HcQ is not a part of that protocol.
I am not aware of this research. Would you care to share a link to peer-reviewed research that show this?
Thanks,
Chris Falter