If I read that article correctly (and I may not have) this was a reinterpretation of the data from one or two other studies that were used by the FDA to show HCQ didn't work that included "missing data" (not sure what data was missing though). The whole thing sounds a little odd to me. It will be interesting to see how peer review goes.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yes, peer review is important. Also studies with similar methodologies.