Scientific misconduct? Ingraham shreds media fawning over weak study that pans hydroxychloroquine

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE.


After weeks of ignoring testimony from doctors speaking about the positive effects of hydroxychloroquine as it pertains to treating coronavirus patients, and after ignoring at least one peer-reviewed study that demonstrated these same effects, members of the left-wing media are in an uproar over a single non-peer-reviewed study that belies these prior findings.

“A malaria drug widely touted by President Donald Trump for treating the new coronavirus showed no benefit in a large analysis of its use in U.S. veterans hospitals. There were more deaths among those given hydroxychloroquine versus standard care,” the Associated Press reported Tuesday, citing a new study.

However, the AP warned that the study “was not a rigorous experiment” and had not yet “been reviewed by other scientists.”

Nevertheless, within minutes of this news breaking, condemnations against anyone who had touted the potential of hydroxychloroquine began pouring in from left-wing media stars.

Look:

Fox News host Laura Ingraham eventually responded to this partisan sniping, which is being repeated nonstop on mainstream airways, later Wednesday evening.

In an eight-minute-long segment, she disputed the left’s veritable propaganda by citing all the counter-facts that the left-wing press have conveniently ignored.

For instance, she noted, “A survey or study released yesterday on hydroxychloroquine for use on COVID patients is shockingly irresponsible and, as top virologists are saying, perhaps even agenda-driven.”

Fact-check: TRUE.

In a tweet posted earlier Wednesday, world-renowned physician and microbiologist Dr. Didier Raoult, MD, PhD, accused the study of containing “three major biases that invalidate its conclusions.”

Look:

A Google translation of his tweet reads as follows: “The study published in pre-print on 21/04 on Medrxiv by Maganoli et al contains three major biases that invalidate its conclusions, in any case absurd and incompatible with the literature. We have detailed these biases in the letter below.”

“Maganoli” refers to Dr. Joseph Magagnoli, the lead researcher on the team that conducted the study.

After playing clips of left-wing media stars such as CNN chief media correspondent and political commentator Brian Stelter disparaging Fox News’ credibility (ironically enough) over its continued interest in hydroxychloroquine as a potential coronavirus cure, Ingraham then turned to Raoult ‘s own findings.

“Renowned French virologist Dr. Didier Raoult released his own study on hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin just a few weeks ago. It demonstrated 91 percent effectiveness in more than 1,000 patients, with zero side effects,” she said.

This is true, though this study was conveniently ignored by the left-wing press, which predictably chose to smear Raoult — never mind that his peer-reviewed study involved far more patients than Magagnoli’s study, which reportedly involved only 368 patients.

“Well today, that same professor, who’s a renowned infectious disease expert, released a devastating response to the researchers who looked at the Veterans Affairs patients,” Ingraham continued.

This is also true.

“In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and may lead to scientific misconduct. The article by Magagnoli et al. (Magagnoli, 2020) is an absolutely spectacular example of this,” Raoult wrote.

“Indeed, in this work, it is concluded, in the end, that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would double the mortality in patients with COVID with a fatality rate of 28% (versus 11% in the NoHCQ group), which is extraordinarily hard to believe.”

View his full letter below:

This letter is also being ignored by the left-wing press.

Raoult cited three notable biases, including the fact that “the ‘untreated’ group actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases, without this group being analyzed in any distinct way. Azithromycin is also a proposed treatment for COVID (Gautret, 2020) with in vitro efficacy (Andreani, 2020), and to mix it with patients who are supposedly untreated is something that is closer to scientific fraud than reasonable analysis.”

“Altogether these 3 voluntary biases are all pushing to the idea of dangerosity of hydroxychloroquine safest drug as reported on nearly 1 million people (Lane, 2020),” his letter concluded. “All in all, this is a work that shows that, in this period, it is possible to propose things that do not stand up to any methodological analysis to try to demonstrate that one is right.”

All of this isn’t to say that hydroxychloroquine is or isn’t beneficial. Nobody, including Ingraham, has stated that it is beneficial. They have however suggested that yes, there may be some benefits to it, and more studies would, therefore, be useful.

“Like many others, I agree that wider studies, of course, they should be conducted,” Ingraham noted. “They should be ongoing to determine the efficacy of this drug and any.”

The problem is that, just as the left-wing media choose to only consider the perspectives of scientists and doctors whose findings benefit their preferred narrative, so too they choose to only consider those studies that benefit their preferred narrative.

“But why deny or even mention the positive results from legitimate studies in favor of the shoddy surveys like the one we just discussed?” Ingraham continued.

Because, she concluded, of something called Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Listen to her whole segment below:

Vivek Saxena

Comments

Latest Articles