WHAT A MESS- “Lancet on Thursday retracted an influential study that raised alarms about the safety of the experimental Covid-19 treatments chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine amid scrutiny of the data underlying the paper”. 🔥 statnews.com/2020/06/04/lan…
2) The retraction came at the request of the authors of the study, published last month, who were not directly involved with the data collection and sources, the journal said.
3) “We can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources,” Mehra of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Ruschitzka of University Hospital Zurich, and Patel of University of Utah said. “Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.”
4) Meanwhile, on Wednesday, other researchers reported the results of the first gold-standard clinical trial of hydroxycholoroquine in Covid-19, concluding that it did not prevent infections any better than placebo. Other clinical trials are ongoing.
5) Lancet study gained so much attention because it went further than other observational studies. The study, which was purportedly based on patient data from 671 hospitals on six continents, reported the drugs also corresponded to higher mortality.
6) The findings led to the pause of some global trials studying hydroxychloroquine. Outside experts, quickly raised concerns after noticing inconsistencies in the data. They asked the company that compiled and analyzed the data, Surgisphere, to explain how it sourced its data.
7) As scrutiny grew, the authors on the paper not affiliated with Surgisphere called for an independent audit. In their statement Thursday, they said that Surgisphere was not cooperating with the independent reviewers and would not provide the data.
8) “As such, our reviewers were not able to conduct an independent and private peer review and therefore notified us of their withdrawal from the peer-review process,” the researchers wrote.
9) Outside experts have raised similar concerns about another study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, from many of the same researchers based on Surgisphere data that looked at the safety of blood pressure medications in patients with Covid-19.
10) Earlier this week, the New England Journal issued an “expression of concern” about the paper, and an independent review of that has also been launched.
11) Above are excerpts from the article. Now my own thoughts: Science works only when data is not fraudulent or when data is available for inspection. When someone betrays science by fabricating or hiding data, that is the anti-thesis of science and fair evidence...
13) ...As such, a retraction was necessary because the data could not be independently audited and verified. Retraction is better than letting results from suspect data stand. I support retractions, and scientists like me only want reliable evidence to come out.
Numerical correction - above should be #12.
13b) We need more accountability. All data from for-profit organizations from now on need verification from non industry sources with direct data access. Usually pharma already allows academic scientists to do this for their trials, but we need more accountability on this front.
