Then why did Bloomberg as well as hundreds of scientist make exactly the same argument that I made. Did you make up the above post?
According to the Bloomberg article, you are wrong.
@Here4money looks like you were 100% wrong. It was fraud. Read below. You idiot.
@Bugenhagen You were also unequivocally 100% wrong according to the article below.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...at-the-center-of-the-hydroxychloroquine-storm
But in the days after publication, concerns over the underlying data bubbled up. Questions arose over how Surgisphere, a little-known company that claims to have 11 employees, could have reached agreements on sharing sensitive patient information with some 1,200 hospitals around the world, much less received and processed the data so quickly.
Last week, more than 200 scientists signed a letter to The Lancet asking for greater transparency regarding the hospitals where patients’ medical records came from and the method of analysis, citing a list of inconsistencies and anomalies in the paper.
Still, the Surgisphere studies were highly unusual in that they claimed to quickly assemble data from hundreds of anonymous hospitals, using numerous electronic medical records systems, under different privacy laws across many countries on multiple continents. And even more strangely, for studies that claimed a massive feat of data integration in record-setting time, they had no biostatisticians listed as authors that might have helped pull all this data together.
More typically, when medical scientists do such studies they rely on clearly named and reputable government databases in one country or state that researchers are able to access.
Surgisphere said its information comes from “a registry, with data obtained from electronic health records” of a “very specific group of hospitalized patients with Covid-19.” The company “directly integrates with the EHRs of our hospital customers,” and “has permission to include these hospitals’ EHR data in its query-able registry/database of real-world, real-time patient encounters.”
Surgisphere didn’t provide the names of companies or institutions from which it obtained the data.
The retracted study published May 1 in the New England Journal of Medicine claimed to have records of 107 patients from five hospitals in France, including ethnic information such as skin color. However, it’s unlawful to collect such data in France. What’s more, the transmission or sale of hospital data and patient records are strictly limited, and often require approval by the CNIL privacy watchdog. The CNIL told Bloomberg it had not received requests from Surgisphere. The French health ministry didn’t immediately return an email seeking comment.
Surgisphere says on its website that it’s worked with Scotland’s National Health Service to find data-driven solutions to high rates of post-surgical complications and infections. No such relationship exists, the health agency said. “At no point have Surgisphere had any access to NHS Scotland data,” it said in an email.
There are many other recent studies posted than the one from Surgisphere. Your claim seems to be that if the Surgisphere study cannot produce backing data then all the studies on the face of the earth are not valid. That simply is not so.