Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvic 1
- MedRxiv -
"Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information."
I'm surprising The New York Times didn't think of this first to publish...
|
Did you not see this in my post?
Quote:
|
Note this is pre-publication and not yet peer reviewed.
|
The NY Times is an excellent source of information on science and I commend you for noticing that publication. They do not publish original research.
In fact the NY Times does cover Covid research including a lengthy article on April 1 reporting the details of the study I was attacked for not mentioning, even though I did mention it in an earlier thread. Thus a positive study on HCQ was covered as the NY Times does not ignore findings either way, and neither do I.
The article begins
Quote:
The malaria drug hydroxychloroquine helped to speed the recovery of a small number of patients who were mildly ill from the coronavirus, doctors in China reported this week.
Cough, fever and pneumonia went away faster, and the disease seemed less likely to turn severe in people who received hydroxychloroquine than in a comparison group not given the drug. The authors of the report said that the medication was promising, but that more research was needed to clarify how it might work in treating coronavirus disease and to determine the best way to use it.
|
and goes on to explain the details, the strengths and weaknesses of the data and has comments from clinicians to understand the import of the evidence. It is an excellent article. Look it up.