This reads as a fluff study where they conflate a defect with an occurrence of .5% with an observed rate of .9% (n=13), call that a 3.39x risk factor when associated with any major drug, to make the study for viral, for more funding and further research. They likely didn't even have data on dosing which would be the strongest indicator of correlation.
This reads as a fluff study where they conflate a defect with an occurrence of .5% with an observed rate of .9% (n=13), call that a 3.39x risk factor when associated with any major drug, to make the study for viral, for more funding and further research. They likely didn't even have data on dosing which would be the strongest indicator of correlation.
(post is archived)