I would like you to state in what ways it is wrong. You have many ways to criticize an article and this article, like all articles is criticizable. You can start by saying that is is retrospective and not prospective, but it is your job to be a critical thinker. By repeating what other say, there is no intellectual contribution
The article is wrong as its results have been proven wrong by more recent studies.
Its content also goes against the latest medical recommendations, therefore spreading it without adding this crucial detail amounts to disinformation that can endanger lives, and should never be acceptable.
You still do not analyze the article and its information. You reply with guidelines made by groups of people who have made mistakes in the past. As I said, the article is criticizable. You can start by the design of the study (I am guiding you). If you read carefully my post, in the last paragraph (where I express my opinion), there is the word "may". I do not know your credentials, but your quotes do not help your points
Congratulations @secondmedicalop! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You distributed more than 700 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 800 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the wordSTOP
The study linked in this post is outdated and the information contained therein have been proven wrong in several follow-up peer-reviewed studies.
I would like you to state in what ways it is wrong. You have many ways to criticize an article and this article, like all articles is criticizable. You can start by saying that is is retrospective and not prospective, but it is your job to be a critical thinker. By repeating what other say, there is no intellectual contribution
"Repeating what other say" would be an opinion, but finding and bringing sources that expose factual scientific research is not.
Scientific research and sources:
The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) recommends against the use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine and/or azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients (AI) and in nonhospitalized patients (AIIa).US National Institutes of Health, studies and guidelines on COVID-19 treatment (https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/chloroquine-or-hydroxychloroquine-and-or-azithromycin/):
expert panel made a “strong recommendation” that hydroxychloroquine should not be used to prevent COVID-19 and said the drug has no meaningful effect on patients already infected.World Health Organization’s Guideline Development Group (https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/339877/WHO-2019-nCoV-prophylaxes-2021.1-eng.pdf#page=3):
The article is wrong as its results have been proven wrong by more recent studies.
Its content also goes against the latest medical recommendations, therefore spreading it without adding this crucial detail amounts to disinformation that can endanger lives, and should never be acceptable.
You still do not analyze the article and its information. You reply with guidelines made by groups of people who have made mistakes in the past. As I said, the article is criticizable. You can start by the design of the study (I am guiding you). If you read carefully my post, in the last paragraph (where I express my opinion), there is the word "may". I do not know your credentials, but your quotes do not help your points
Thank you for that update, my friend.
Congratulations @secondmedicalop! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Your next target is to reach 800 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Check out the last post from @hivebuzz: