[ProtectOurFreedom]

Wow...

1. “no ethics review”
2. “unusually small reported variances in baseline variables, interventions and outcomes”
3. “no mention of the countries or hospitals that contributed to the data source and no acknowledgments to their contributions.”
4. "data that was reportedly from Australian patients did not seem to match data from the Australian government"

Other than those few problems, it was a rock solid study.

[ScaniaBoy]

Don't you remember? This was THE paper (together with the British RECOVERY study where toxic doses of HCQ were used in late stage patients) who gave the regulatory agencies reasons to close down trials with HCQ and stop emergency use of the pharmaceutical. Or as was written in the letter from the concerned scientists to Lancet:

The WHO has paused recruitment to the hydroxychloroquine arm in their SOLIDARITY trial. The UK regulatory body, MHRA, requested the temporary pausing of recruitment into all hydroxychloroquine trials in the UK (treatment and prevention), and France has changed its national recommendation for the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 treatment and also halted trials.

And of course even when the paper had been retracted (and shown to be nothing but a hoax) the regulatory agencies maintained their recommendations re HCQ.

(One wonders who paid MR Mehra et al to write this paper. If we only had any real investigative journalists....)