Thread by @BioinfoTools

The request to retract the paper describing an approach to use PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 (the virus causing COVID-19) has been denied.

It was never likely to be valid.

A few loose thoughts⬇️

https://twitter.com/MarionKoopmans/status/1357378486386782209

The paper presents a method to test for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

You can think of it as resolving a catch-22. How can a country test for SARS-CoV-2 before they have samples or cases?

There were some genome sequences. (Yay genome sequences!)

More⬇️

In the paper an experienced team suggests a way to put the sequence data to use. They're basically giving a worksheet that others might try out.

⬇️

A criticism by those claiming COVID-19 is "hype" is that because the publication was fast "something must be wrong".

I doubt anyone can honestly say that it was not important that tests were quickly set up. Speed mattered.

This paper wasn't the only one either.

⬇️

The journal the PCR method paper was sent to is a public health journal that features covering developing outbreaks. It has processes to get things out faster if need be for that reason.

Some outbreaks need immediate attention. COVID-19 did.

⬇️

The paper was published quickly, but that's because they recognised the urgency, and got everyone lined up -

A briefer account of the method was already available from the WHO before the paper was published; the paper covered more of validating of it -

⬇️

There's also a poorly founded idea that science proceeds by "absolute" "proofs". Some areas of mathematics might, but most of science works by making the "best working model" with what you have at the time, then improving on that.

⬇️

We don't usually remove earlier works that are later improved on.

Aside from that they're part of 'the record', all science works by improving earlier work so it would be nonsensical.

⬇️

What are retracted are papers that are deliberately false, or so errant as to fall below any sensible standard. (e.g. Wakesfield's infamous paper often used to "link" MMR vaccines and autism:

https://twitter.com/jflier/status/1356627494472933376

)

This paper simply doesn't fit that bill, and never did.

⬇️

It would be great if people "concerned" about PCR moved on to more sensible things! PCR is very well-established and well-understood.

Here's a fun explanation of how PCR is run:

https://twitter.com/MackayIM/status/1331440271716827137

There are more formal explanations around, too, if that's your thing.

⬇️

Perhaps tellingly, no-one complains about all the other infections PCR is used to test. (You can also test non-infectious things, lots you can do!)

Here's example that one that might give some a giggle:

https://twitter.com/PhilipCarterGP/status/1343433708087361536

/ENDS