Thread by @houndcl

a "highly-(self)-cited" preprint from #raoult suggesting in vitro synergy of #hydrodroxychloroquine + #azithromycin against SARS-CoV-2 got accepted by Microbial Pathogenesis.

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

a 18-day "serious" peer review happened

Let's see what we have(troll face)🔻

This paper is more like a beautiful mathematic proof - concise but "brilliant" -

"we proved that synergy is true. period"

Abstract: 93 words
Result: 143 words

🤣🤣🤣

Back to science, what is synergy?

In pharmacology, synergy is the observation that the outcome of a combination greater than individual. In plain word, 1+1 > 2.

Here is Fig 2A. A: az, H: hcq. number = concentration in uM.

WHERE IS THE Ct for HCQ & AZ ALONE ⁉️

Unfortunately I didn't find other evidence that supports the in vitro synergy in this paper. The other two figures are all talking about the combination, combination, combination. no mention of antiviral effect of HCQ when used alone

Therefore, the claim of synergy is INVALID

From bottom of my heart, I still want to trust Pr Raoult, because his total citations is x100 than mine. There must be some evidence since this combo has been used on >3000 patients.

Yes, there is. The preprint version did showed synergy

p > 0.3 🤣

https://twitter.com/houndcl/status/1251243019816198144

Unfortunately that's all this paper is about - concise, brilliant, highly cited but very likely p-value hacking was involved.

One day, truth will be revealed. It's not a difficult experiment indeed.

Please speak out if you CANNOT reproduce 📢

When a famous scientist publishes bad science,

👉All the criticisms based upon "our work didn't agree with your result" become bully.

👉All follow up based upon the science becomes fake news.

👉All impact built upon the paper becomes an abuse of power

Sounds familiar, hmm?

PubPeer link updated
pubpeer.com/publications/9…