After a month of controversy following the retraction of the Surgisphere paper trashing the drug. But what to do about the op-ed endorsing the views in the paper?:
As questions swirled around the paper, Stuart Spencer, an editor at The Lancet, told Funck-Brentano to wait for the audit — which turned out to be impossible because Surgisphere would not cooperate. The journal’s ethical review committee then contacted Funck-Brentano, letting him know that the paper would be retracted and that the commentary would have to be, too.
“A month after Surgisphere paper retraction, Lancet retracts, replaces hydroxychloroquine editorial” at Retraction Watch
The journal received the advice to retract the op-ed and publish a new one, so:
The journal — which, along with the JAMA journals has been using the “retract and replace” approach — agreed to that. Funck-Brentano and his colleague, along with a new co-author, wrote a new version, and it was accepted a few weeks ago.
The retraction and republication appears today. “A month after Surgisphere paper retraction, Lancet retracts, replaces hydroxychloroquine editorial” at Retraction Watch
Beware of internet history. It is written on little electronic signals, not paper…
See also: The big Covid-19 retractions: Top people didn’t notice the smell?
Rectraction Watch:
“A Nobel Laureate has retracted a 2016 paper in Nature Chemistry that explored the origins of life on earth, after discovering the main conclusions were not correct.”
Nobel Laureate Jack Szostak: ” In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief [in our findings]…we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been (and as Tivoli was) in interpreting these experiments.”
https://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/05/definitely-embarrassing-nobel-laureate-retracts-non-reproducible-paper-nature-journal/
All the ways the Hydrochloroquine study was crap.
https://gizmodo.com/all-the-ways-the-influential-hydroxychloroquine-study-w-1844378680
It doesn’t surprise me that the doctor in question looks like Trump’s doctor.
ETTD.
Proof that HCQ works and opposition is political
By publishing a nonsense review of a small preliminary study one is actually proving the opposite. The article just shows that the opponents to HCQ do not care about saving human lives and will try to score political points any way they can.
This fake news was also published by RHampton yesterday.
RP, you would be well advised to follow the discussion here over several months. There is a lot more to the story than you will hear from highly polarised media. There is a reason why the flawed Lancet study was hailed even as signs of defects were everywhere. It was then subjected to challenge and had to be withdrawn after bad policy had already been based on it. I particularly emphasise that there is no justification for trying to erect a placebo — no treatment — control on studies regarding a fast moving, potentially fatal pandemic with a disease that does significant respiratory damage even as soon as one is aware of symptoms. The case of untreated syphilis with the Tuskegee studies comes to mind; where, no, “you have a 50% chance of a potential treatment so sign the dotted line of this consent form” is nowhere near good enough. Something is seriously wrong with research ethics and epistemology. Especially, as basic decision theory — I put it up, folks from Kennedy School at Harvard have raised it, Raoult has raised it, others have pointed it out — will readily show that a business as usual pattern establishes a baseline expected outcome, which can be contrasted with reasonably credible alternatives and the evidence of a different possible outcome. Gap analysis then justifies strategic change. KF
PS: Wiki, inadvertently testifying against ideological interest:
See the issues, and the power of a fortiori reasoning?
One good thing from the Gizmodo article is a paper that explains. the process by which the virus enters the cell and how it can be thwarted. https://bit.ly/395WbCI
Very technical. Anybody wanting to provide a layman’s summary is welcome.
F/N: Given the worldviews and ethics challenges at work, the Tuskegee study sustained across 40 years is a good reason to be wary of pronouncements of public health agencies and their spokesmen. KF
The Good news – Lots of it
From Israel
https://bit.ly/3eDjBk4
https://bit.ly/2WmifDT
Meanwhile Israel seems to have some of the best results in the world.
On a per million basis
Cases – 4606
Deaths – 40
And finally Sweden https://bit.ly/32jSAzl
Only 70 people in Sweden under 50 have died. Average of all who died is 80. Sweden did a lousy job of taking care of its elderly. Otherwise they would have been even more successful. Only 1 in 2000 died of C19 as it is. My guess is much less if they had used HCQ and zinc early.
More good news later. There is lots of it.
Here’s your study with control not given HCQ.
French Analysis
Exclusive: Studies Confirm That Dr. Zelenko’s Treatment Protocol Is Effective Against COVID-19:
RPIT
RE: Jerry citing Israeli success against Covid-19
Netanyahu admitted Wednesday night that the government made a mistake in the way it reopened the economy after the original closure during the first wave of the virus: “The opening of the banquet halls and large gatherings … these things lead to a disaster and raise the level of morbidity,” he said. “So, our guidelines will be very strict about gatherings.”
“If we can take steps before the closure, we will not get there, if we sit idly by in the coming days, reality will bring us to a closure,” he said following a tour of Hadassah-University Medical Center in Ein Kerem. “I think we have three or four days left to see if there is any result to those minimal steps – much less than we wanted. If a medical miracle happens to us and we see a change in trend, then maybe we won’t get” to a closure either.
“I say this in a simple way: From my first day in office I said and did everything not to allow us to get to a general closure,” he continued. “Whenever there is any restriction, a broad public protest against that restriction begins. We must understand once and for all: if no additional tools are available to us, we will eventually have a total lockdown.”
https://www.jpost.com/health-science/edelstein-will-know-if-country-needs-total-lockdown-within-four-days-635195
RHampton, more fake news.
The numbers for Israel were posted above. Are they wrong? Do you deny they are outstanding?
Do you understand anything you post? Are they just cut and paste from some site. It’s always possible to find information for or against. But is it coherent? Most of what you post is not coherent.