Posted on 06/06/2020 12:31:02 AM PDT by Winniesboy
The Lancet is one of the oldest and most respected medical journals in the world. Recently, they published an article on Covid patients receiving hydroxychloroquine with a dire conclusion: the drug increases heartbeat irregularities and decreases hospital survival rates. This result was treated as authoritative, and major drug trials were immediately halted – because why treat anyone with an unsafe drug?
Now, that Lancet study has been retracted, withdrawn from the literature entirely, at the request of three of its authors who “can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources”. Given the seriousness of the topic and the consequences of the paper, this is one of the most consequential retractions in modern history.
It is natural to ask how this is possible. How did a paper of such consequence get discarded like a used tissue by some of its authors only days after publication? If the authors don’t trust it now, how did it get published in the first place?
The answer is quite simple. It happened because peer review, the formal process of reviewing scientific work before it is accepted for publication, is not designed to detect anomalous data. It makes no difference if the anomalies are due to inaccuracies, miscalculations, or outright fraud. This is not what peer review is for...
At its best, peer review is a slow and careful evaluation of new research by appropriate experts. It involves multiple rounds of revision that removes errors, strengthens analyses, and noticeably improves manuscripts.
At its worst, it is merely window dressing that gives the unwarranted appearance of authority, a cursory process...
Peer review during a pandemic faces a brutal dilemma – the moral importance of releasing important information with planetary consequences quickly, versus the scientific importance of evaluating the presented work fully ...– .
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
There was a massive, partisan, coordinated assault against Hydroxychloroquine, from the start.
It was very blatant, and a huge embarrassment, as an American, to see such a huge public attack on a drug which showed such high hopes.
Very embarassing.
TDS thats what happened. The left isn’t about science, it’ all about pushing their narrative forward and their cult.
When did it become acceptable to refuse access to raw data, models, and formulas? When did it become acceptable to apply proprietary undocumented “corrections” to data, or refuse to reveal sources? Seems to me, this became standard and accepted practice with Climate Change “studies”. Rather than review, you are expected to accept these unknowns as unassailable fact. I guess these doctors thought they would get the same benefit.
Not anymore they are not.
Ill never believe anything from The Lancet again. Not ever.
Because of hate. Seething, irrational hate.
Yup.
The fake Lance "study", which never even happened at all, was quickly created out of thin air the moment President Trump announced he was taking HCQ as a prophylactic. They had to strike back quickly to stop drug from gaining any traction and saving lives.
Can’t find the thread right now, but it involved the “authors” of this study the Lancet apparently accepted as gospel. A “Doctor” who had myriad charges against him, some other guy, and an “adult model.”
I don’t believe it is over.
Not nearly as bad as many said, but apparently there was a new high, today, in new cases, if I am understanding correctly?
They also promoted this Lancet anti HCQ hoax ceaselessly on this site.
I checked the media that week.
It was all they talked about.
Our media, is a leftist mob. They are about partisanship.
Not facts. Partisanship.
Pretty much.
Simple answer: “TDS”.
Ah, here we go! In The Guardian of all places!
A “doctor” being sued from numerous unsatisfied customers, a “science-fiction writer” and an “adult model.” The esteemed world medical community, including The Lancet, bought their BS because Orange Man Bad. And how many lives were lost as a result?
When Climate Change it is. When Twitter “fact check”, that is.
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.