Originally Posted by
GioFerrante
Yan's primary argument seems not to consider the vast number of methodological differences between the studies: dosages used, timing of treatment, and specific outcomes analyzed, for example. One of his arguments is that the 3 studies at least risk of bias showed no relationship between treatment and outcome. We can't infer the entire meta analysis from 3 studies, those 3 also evaluated mild to moderate covid19 outcomes, not severe outcomes. They may have issues with dosage or timing, not sure, I'd have to review them. He seems to discount the other studies as they have a greater risk of bias - which does not make sense. There are more quality meta analyses than this specific paper anyway. He mentions the elgazzar study, which other researchers have already retracted from their meta analyses (as they should when a BS study comes out).
In any case, debate like this between researchers is actually how scientific consensus is reached. I'd love to hear Campbell's rebuttal.