>>11590730>do not get a say in whether the paper is publishedTurns out, sentences actually keep going on until there's a period. Wowie Zowie!
Say your work has government funding: can you call up the NIH and ask them to threaten Nature into publishing your manuscript?
>>11591400>The link works fine, retards. And here's a backup of the pdf: https://files.catbox.moe/i1oezg.pdfThe link was temporarily dead, I guess.
Things I like about it:
-positive COVID-19 test as measured by RT-PCR was required for inclusion (as opposed to presumptive or CT-based diagnosis)
-some effort for proper controls (especially matching for ethnicity and disease severity)
Things I don't like so much:
-not double-blinded, not a clinical trial by any means
-pre-print, hasn't actually gone through full peer-review yet
-manuscript is really shoddily constructed, figures look horrible, and there are a lot of grammatical and spelling mistakes (also 7 references, wtf)
-authors used PSM for their analysis, which is kind of a famously weak matching procedure for this kind of data
If someone wants to fund an actual intervention study using this drug as the treatment group, I'd say go for it. But calling this manuscript evidence of a 'cure' is really, really, really wishful thinking. Read what the author wrote:
>Although we report a strong potential signal for benefit in COVID-19, these data must not be considered conclusive since unknown confounders cannot always be reliably accounted for, even when propensity score matching techniques are emplooyed in developing control groups. 
