Retraction Watch: Lancet hydroxychloroquine editorial retracted and replaced

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 14, 2020

Intelligent Design, Peer review}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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

Here.

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?

Comments

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.jerry_{July 16, 2020
July
07
Jul
16
16
2020
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

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-635195rhampton7_{July 15, 2020
July
07
Jul
15
15
2020
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

Exclusive: Studies Confirm That Dr. Zelenko’s Treatment Protocol Is Effective Against COVID-19:
Risk stratification-based treatment of COVID-19 outpatients as early as possible after symptom onset with the used triple therapy, including the combination of zinc with low dose hydroxychloroquine, was associated with significantly less hospitalizations and 5 times less all-cause deaths.
RPITET_{July 15, 2020
July
07
Jul
15
15
2020
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Here's your study with control not given HCQ. French AnalysisLatemarch_{July 15, 2020
July
07
Jul
15
15
2020
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

The Good news - Lots of it From Israel
Hebrew U. scientist: Drug could eradicate COVID-19 from lungs in days Researchers at Israel’s Hebrew University of Jerusalem and New York’s Mount Sinai Medical Center believe they could potentially downgrade COVID-19’s severity into nothing worse than a common cold. New research by Hebrew University Prof. Ya’acov Nahmias and Sinai’s Dr. Benjamin tenOever revealed that the FDA-approved drug Fenofibrate (Tricor) could reduce SARS-CoV-2’s ability to reproduce or even make it disappear.
https://bit.ly/3eDjBk4
Israeli defense companies team up with UAE firm to develop breakthrough coronavirus technology Two leading Israeli defense companies have recently announced historic cooperation agreements with Group42 (G42), a technology company from the United Arab Emirates, in order to develop new solutions against the coronavirus pandemic. Israel Aerospace Industries is working with the Abu-Dhabi-based company to research and develop a medical system that can scan the blood of people from above the skin and notify in seconds whether the disease has been detected, allowing for mass screening
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
Why Sweden Succeeded in “Flattening the Curve” and New York Failed Coronavirus deaths have slowed to a crawl in Sweden. With the exception of a single death on July 13, no deaths in this nation of 10 million have been reported since July 10... To be accurate, Sweden has outperformed many nations around the world with its “lighter touch” approach and was one of the few nations in Europe to see its economy grow in the first quarter of 2020... there is little to no scientific evidence that lockdowns work. Second, as evidence today shows, lockdowns come with widespread unintended consequences: mass unemployment, recession, social unrest, psychological deterioration, suicides, and drug overdoses.
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.jerry_{July 15, 2020
July
07
Jul
15
15
2020
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{July 15, 2020
July
07
Jul
15
15
2020
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

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.jerry_{July 15, 2020
July
07
Jul
15
15
2020
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

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:
The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the African American Male was a clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 [--> 40 years! that indicts the systems] by the United States Public Health Service.[1][2] The purpose of this study was to observe the natural history of untreated syphilis [--> notice, the no treatment baseline in the face of a known destructive disease]; the African-American men in the study were only told they were receiving free health care [--> 50% chance of free effective care, sign the consent form does not make a dime's worth of moral difference: first do no harm] from the Federal government of the United States.[3] The Public Health Service started the study in 1932 in collaboration with Tuskegee University (then the Tuskegee Institute), a historically black college in Alabama. [--> corrupting and co-opting the good] Investigators enrolled in the study a total of 600 impoverished, African-American sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama.[3] Of these men, 399 had latent syphilis, with a control group of 201 men who were not infected.[2] [--> notice, the whole study was itself a "control" on VD treatments] As an incentive for participation in the study, the men were promised free medical care, but were deceived by the PHS, who disguised placebos, ineffective methods, and diagnostic procedures as treatment.[4] [--> does that sound familiar, sugar pills or the like that are deliberately mislabelled, administered under false colours, costumes and ceremonies of medicine and science] The men who had syphilis were never informed of their diagnosis, despite the risk of infecting others, and the fact that the disease could lead to blindness, deafness, mental illness, heart disease, bone deterioration, collapse of the central nervous system, and death.[5][6][7][8]. [--> misinformation by silence in teeth of duties to truth and justice] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the men were told that they were being treated for "bad blood,” a colloquialism that described various conditions such as syphilis, anemia and fatigue. "Bad blood"—specifically the collection of illnesses the term included—was a leading cause of death within the southern African-American community.[2] [--> further misinformation and malpractice in the face of known threat] The men were initially told that the study was only going to last six months, but it was extended to 40 years.[2] After funding for treatment was lost, the study was continued without informing the men that they would never be treated. None of the infected men were treated with penicillin despite the fact that by 1947, the antibiotic had become the standard treatment for syphilis.[9] [--> in our case, potential effective treatments were improperly marginalised] Study clinicians could have chosen to treat all syphilitic subjects and close the study [--> the obvious right thing, once penicillin emerged as an effective antibiotic during WW2] , or split off a control group for testing with penicillin. [--> that is more or less what is proposed as gold standard] Instead, they continued the study without treating any participants; they withheld treatment and information about it from the subjects. [--> marginalising adequate evidence on HCQ+ cocktails etc raises similar questions] In addition, scientists prevented participants from accessing syphilis treatment programs available to other residents in the area.[10] The study continued, under numerous Public Health Service supervisors, until 1972, when a leak to the press resulted in its termination on November 16 of that year.[11] [--> why did it take 40 years to get a whistleblower?] The victims of the study, all African-American, included numerous men who died of syphilis, 40 wives who contracted the disease and 19 children born with congenital syphilis.[12] The 40-year Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the African American Male study was a major violation of ethical standards. [--> a fortiori, how much more what we are doing 50 years nearly after this expose, a major review of ethics and epistemology of medical research was due ever since the Nazi experiments] Researchers knowingly failed to treat participants appropriately after penicillin was proven to be an effective treatment for syphilis and became widely available.[9] [--> proof is not in the gift of inductive investigations, and a fortiori, how should we act when in vitro studies, animal analogues, off label clinical cases and/or credible biochemical models are on the table?] Moreover, participants remained ignorant of the study clinicians’ true purpose, which was to observe the natural course of untreated syphilis.[3] The revelation in 1972 of study failures by a whistleblower, Peter Buxtun, led to major changes in U.S. law and regulation concerning the protection of participants in clinical studies. [--> not enough, obviously] Now studies require informed consent,[13] [--> the standard for same needs serious upgrade, given what decision theory is telling us] communication of diagnosis and accurate reporting of test results.[14] The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, [is] cited as "arguably the most infamous biomedical research study in U.S. history . . .
See the issues, and the power of a fortiori reasoning?kairosfocus_{July 15, 2020
July
07
Jul
15
15
2020
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

Proof that HCQ works and opposition is political
All the ways the Hydrochloroquine study was crap
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.jerry_{July 15, 2020
July
07
Jul
15
15
2020
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT}

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.Retired Physicist_{July 14, 2020
July
07
Jul
14
14
2020
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

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/martin_r_{July 14, 2020
July
07
Jul
14
14
2020
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply