Posted on 05/31/2023 6:12:05 AM PDT by Red Badger
At least 330 COVID-19-related medical papers have been retracted since the coronavirus pandemic began, oftentimes for scientific errors or ethical shortcomings, according to watchdog Retraction Watch.
Many of the papers were published in smaller, less influential publications, although a number were published in the highly-prestigious Lancet and other influential journals like Science. The topics covered in the papers ranged from alternative proposed COVID-19 treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to false COVID-19 side effects.
One example of a U-turn from researchers occurred at the University of Manchester, where researchers two years ago asserted that hearing loss could be a result of COVID-19. Now, those researchers admit that was a faulty assumption.
Professor Kevin Munro of the University of Manchester audiology department admitted that many COVID-19 studies had been rushed. “There was an urgent need for this carefully conducted clinical and diagnostic study to investigate the long-term effects of Covid-19 on the auditory system. Many previous studies were published rapidly during the pandemic but lacked good scientific rigour,” he said.
One retracted paper published in Science examined the spread of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 in South Africa. It was withdrawn after social media users pointed out that some of the samples used could have been false positives. A number of the retractions were also social science papers, including one that used an inadequate sample size and imbalanced search terms to try and report on COVID-19 vaccine “misinformation” on social media.
Gunnveig Grødeland, a senior researcher at the Institute of Immunology at the University of Oslo, said many withdrawn papers during COVID-19 have been the result of ethical shortcomings.
“It will, of course, be withdrawn when it is found that ethical guidelines have been breached,” she said. In many cases, a lack of informed consent was a reason for retraction.
Not all of the retractions were cutting against the establishment narrative surrounding COVID-19. One paper was retracted for falsely claiming that the vast majority of COVID-19 deaths in the United States were due to other comorbidities, according to Science Direct.
Follow the science.
Of course. Under the COVID situation, informed consent was impossible. They withheld the data and wanted it sealed for 75 years.
many “medical” journals like NEJM did not
publish good papers, and removed them from access.
They should be bankrupted, sued, and along with their
Editors TRIED FOR TREASON AND GENOCIDE.
I suspect many of the papers are the ones the media relied on to tell us to wear masks, stay 6 feet apart, and not to take horse-paste. Now that they have outlived their usefulness its time for the papers to be retracted.
CFW wrote: “I suspect many of the papers are the ones the media relied on to tell us to wear masks, stay 6 feet apart, and not to take horse-paste. Now that they have outlived their usefulness its time for the papers to be retracted.”
I suspect you’re referring to papers like this one:
Publicly available data from the United States Center for Disease Control (U.S. CDC) were concluded by the external reviewers to be misinterpreted to make the erroneous conclusion that the vast majority of reported deaths due to COVID-19 are actually due to other comorbidities. Such an egregious misinterpretation and misrepresentation are unacceptable.”
“
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X
Shades of Emily Litella...
This is just a big “Oops”
“We misunderstood “
It let’s them off for their “overt and outright lies” as well, their “mistakes”
It’s a dodge...
PULL ALL FUNDING FROM EVERY ORGANIZATION THAT LET THIS FRAUD PROCEED!
What’s 330 as a percentage of total studies? Also, what was the reach (how many people and doctors read them)?
Pulling these papers now, only after the “plandemic” is functionally over, is incredibly disingenuous. As already noted, how much public policy was informed by these papers? What would have been different if the problems with these papers had been acknowledged sooner, and how badly damaged would “the message” have been?
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.