Sorry I have two MS in pure mathematics and applied mathematics, top 30 rank of my year in a 60 million+ major European country across both Mathematics and Physics, plus a solid background from Quantum Mechanics to Molecular Biology. I have spent most of my professional life making hard calls for clients and my firms based on data, against rumors, contradictory opinions, etc.... including during 3 years being responsible for large scale high-stakes fraud detection.
I know real science, and the papers I have seen published are all very weak.
Some examples, but the list is much longer:
- Patients handpicked but the rules followed to handpick them are mysteriously not written, we dont even know if they were handpicked before or after the trial (a classical one - I could prove anything and its contrary if you let me handpick patients)
- There is never a fair comparison to a non-Leronlimab patients. This does not require a double blind as some are claiming. You dont need blinding to perform a comparison, ok this will be less strong than with a double blind, but will be MUCH stronger than the current papers who perform no comparison at all.
- I think in particular about the COVID plasma reduction which, magically, are not measured for non-Leronlimab patient (althought they had them but magically didn't publish that for these patients)
- Statistical tests are never performed on the key metrics, always on secondary metrics. On the key metrics I did perform them (it is so obvious for any real scientist, like a car with a wheel missing), and guess what, NONE of the key metrics were statistically significant
- Papers written by insiders and shareholders (eg the last one even has the CEO has a co-author)
And so on...
