8 Comments

Matthew,

Thank you for the thorough discussion in parts 1 and 2. Has part 3 been published, I would be interested to read if so. Thank you

Expand full comment

It is a frustrating fact that the world has moved so quickly that my priorities have several times shifted as I wrote.

Expand full comment

I am just now delving into this. I Googled "why did Trump mention hydroxychloroquine" and ran across an article in Forbes, a Timeline of Trump's championing of HCQ. In the first paragraph they link to this study, which is stamped as 'retracted' so I came here and searched for 'surgisphere' - So basically two years later and Forbes has not updated or corrected their original article. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/22/all-the-times-trump-promoted-hydroxychloroquine/?sh=5f5f9bc34643

Expand full comment

It's worse than that. The article's citations continue to grow.

Expand full comment

I sent YouTube a demand, they put https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQE_ffC0_Mk back.

Expand full comment

Well done.

Expand full comment

Criminal.

Expand full comment

This research study was the point I which I realized that scientific research and reporting was corrupt. My own analysis of the data on the day after it hit the mass media revealed "the Australian problem" you noted above. Just five hospitals in Australia provided the care that led to every death in the whole nation. If we could identify those hospitals, we would definitely know where NOT to seek treatment for COVID! It was surreal to know the data was inherently flawed, and watching as the paper was trumpeted 24/7 from literally every media source. Months later the retraction was just a footnote in the media, if it was mentioned all.

Expand full comment