The 1st pandemic research scandal, as @ScienceMagazine aptly puts it, now leads to a retraction of @TheLancet hydroxychloroquine paper by its non-@Surgisphere authors
science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/36…
science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/36…
What still remains unclear is whether the 3 authors, who have now retracted the paper, had access to the primary data that was published. It looks as though they did not. And if so, that violates journal requirements and was a setup for what occurred.
The "only" major difference from the retracted paper v. prior/other 14 studies (10 observational, 4 RCTs) was the ~35% increase in mortality. Otherwise, there was consistency in lack of efficacy (and risk of heart arrhythmias in many).
Now there's no data to support ⬆️ mortality
Now there's no data to support ⬆️ mortality
Believe it or not, this is still on @Surgishpere's website:
"We are committed to providing access to this healthcare data as a public service to researching clinicians ..."
surgisphere.com/2020/05/29/res…
Except that they never provided access.
And why was that not pressed fully?
"We are committed to providing access to this healthcare data as a public service to researching clinicians ..."
surgisphere.com/2020/05/29/res…
Except that they never provided access.
And why was that not pressed fully?
Another question, in retrospect, comes to mind:
A week after the paper was published the authors issued a correction. Wouldn't that have been the time to get this straightened out?
A week after the paper was published the authors issued a correction. Wouldn't that have been the time to get this straightened out?
Standing up for the editors and peer reviewers at @TheLancet and @NEJM which retracted the papers today.
If authors misrepresent that they had full access to the data, there isn't any way to verify or refute that.
The system relies on trust.
If authors misrepresent that they had full access to the data, there isn't any way to verify or refute that.
The system relies on trust.
