Lancet, New England Journal retract Covid-19 studies, including one that raised safety concerns about malaria drugs

From Stat

By Andrew Joseph @DrewQJoseph

June 4, 2020Reprints

The Lancet, one of the world’s top medical journals, 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.

Just over an hour later, the New England Journal of Medicine retracted a separate study, focused on blood pressure medications in Covid-19, that relied on data from the same company.

The retractions came at the request of the authors of the studies, published last month, who were not directly involved with the data collection and sources, the journals said.

“We can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources,” Mandeep Mehra of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Frank Ruschitzka of University Hospital Zurich, and Amit Patel of University of Utah said in a statement issued by the Lancet. “Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.”

The retraction of the Lancet paper is sure to add fuel to contentious arguments about the potential of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, two old malaria drugs, in Covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. President Trump has touted them as valuable treatments, despite a lack of rigorous data showing they have a benefit.

Full article here. (including narrative preservation)

Advertisements

154 thoughts on “Lancet, New England Journal retract Covid-19 studies, including one that raised safety concerns about malaria drugs

  1. Nothing the lancet says has an iota of credibility since their appalling treatment of Dr Wakefield over his now proven MMR vaccine warnings re autism.

    • Proven? Where?
      The link between MMR and autism has been disproven time and again. However some people just refuse to let go of their favorite myths.

      • I have no knowledge about the mmr vaccine and autism, but I remember many years ago reading an article about issues with the swine flu vaccine promoted under Jimmy Carter (I have searched, but not found any reference to that article since, so a caveat is in order as I may not be remembering as accurately as I would like).

        The article stated that patients suffered brain damage due to contamination of the vaccine with CSF (cerebrospinal fluid). Apparently, certain cultures were done in CSF during the manufacturing process of the vaccine and the CSF wasn’t completely washed out in some batches. Some (but not all) patients developed an immune reaction to their own CSF, thus causing the brain damage. As a result of this article, I have always thought that some cases of vaccine-related autism may be related to bad batches and the fact that recipients don’t all have the same immune reaction.

        If anyone has better information on this, I would be very interested if the article I read so many years ago was accurate or not.

      • You mean when that felon who can’t enter the US without going straight to jail authored a study that “proves” no link between MMR vaccines and autism?

        Or when a very large study (hyped on the uber-vaxxer lamestream Forbes) did find a statistical link?

    • Jamie, you are being called out over an unsupported assertion. Please cough up the evidence.

      We are willing to read extensively, ponder deeply and examine evidence perspicaciously. This is a very important matter.

      Thanks

      • That is one of the best things about this web site. The brainpower of people on any side of many arguments / debates here brings forward enormous vetting power. I love it. And it’s free!

        • Agreed. And I particularly like that the responses were civil given the internet’s typically polarizing treatment of this topic. No name calling, no brow beating, no conspiracy ideation… 🙂 Well done everyone.

      • I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing on this subject, as I haven’t read much on it, but one study I stumbled upon set off alarm bells for me: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31558225/?from_term=thimerosal&from_pos=5

        The very first two sentences in the background caught my attention:
        “Thimerosal has been used as a preservative in many products which may cause contact dermatitis. It is the second most common allergen in positive patch test reactions, though being a clinical irrelevant allergen.”

        It is the second most common allergen in positive patch test reactions? And we’re injecting it into everyone via vaccines?

        Then I found this article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28595786/?from_term=thimerosal&from_pos=10

        and this one: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29481853/?from_term=thimerosal&from_page=2&from_pos=3

        and this one: https://akjournals.com/view/journals/030/52/1/article-p95.xml
        choice quote: “manufacturers began to introduce TMS-free vaccines, following a statement in 1999 from the US Public Health Service and the American Academy of Paediatrics, which recommended removal of the compound from vaccines routinely given to children.”

        • “…choice quote: ‘manufacturers began to introduce TMS-free vaccines, following a statement in 1999 from the US Public Health Service and the American Academy of Paediatrics, which recommended removal of the compound from vaccines routinely given to children’…”

          Yep. And how have autism rates dropped since 1999? Nope. In fact, they’ve risen.

          • The small fact the “autism”‘s definition keeps getting expanded may have somewhat to do with that. Just like “racism”‘s definition keeps getting expanded, almost as if there were some sort of agenda behind such.

      • I agree that the MMR-autism link is tenuous but vaccines still cause autism. I used to believe in the “vaccine” consensus (like I used to believe the “consensus” about AGW) until I recently read “How to end the Autism Epidemic” by JB Handley and “Age of Aluminum”. Those books prove that vaccines (with Aluminum) cause autism. Check out vaccinepapers.org for more info.

    • You are partially correct; The Lancet has no credibility because of the Wakefield paper. It took them a decade to retract the blatant fraud perpetuated by Wakefield for personal gain.

      They have the blood of children on their hands, as do all Wakefield supporters.

    • James Noodle

      https://www.upworthy.com/20-years-ago-a-doctor-published-a-study-it-was-completely-made-up-and-it-made-us-all-sicker

      20 years ago, a doctor published a study. It was completely made up, and it made us all sicker.
      The entire study was fabricated.

      Once upon a time, a scientist named Dr. Andrew Wakefield published in the medical journal The Lancet that he had discovered a link between autism and vaccines.

      After years of controversy and making parents mistrust vaccines, along with collecting $674,000 from lawyers who would benefit from suing vaccine makers, it was discovered he had made the whole thing up. The Lancet publicly apologized and reported that further investigation led to the discovery that he had fabricated everything.

      In the intervening years, millions have been spent on studying this further to see if there was anything that could connect autism and vaccines. This is what they found.

      https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTQ4NzIzOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNzY2MDEzMn0.EnkMvPddtDRQyP_IgmJGHCAREarS2rBUYaW0tH0OM8I/img.jpg?width=980

      • Why doesn’t that poster provide any references to the clinical studies it mentions? It just says ‘clinical studies show’….

        • Same reason the CDC tells us to wear masks but links to ZERO studies that show masks to be effective at slowing the spread of a virus.

          Everyone then says, “Well the CDC says”
          Then I say, “What science are they using”
          crickets

          Most, not all, but most of the scientific studies I’ve read have shown masks to be worthless at slowing the spread of a virus. It’s telling that the CDC doesn’t cite a single study but tells people to wear them.

    • Jamie Moodie: “Nothing the lancet says has an iota of credibility since their appalling treatment of Dr Wakefield over his now proven MMR vaccine warnings re autism.”

      jtom: ” It took [The Lancet] a decade to retract the blatant fraud perpetuated by Wakefield for personal gain.

      Jamie, you really do have to address the “proofs” of Wakefield’s “fraud” here listed. It is a lot of work. But it can be done. I would do it but have other similar de-debunks to attend to, which also will take time.

      I’m a climate skeptic, “converted” in about 2006, used to post here regularly as “Lucy Skywalker” and Anthony even put up a few of my pieces.
      It took me months to undo all the “fake news” that climatism had already propagated in 2006, that was before Climategate. I could undo the bad science, detail for detail, because I had the time and enough basic scientific training, especially in Maths and Physics. I then wrote it up (click my name) so that others who had neither the time nor the scientific training could follow, not just to believe but also to see and understand the truth and the evidence themselves – as far as each person needed to go.
      All I can say re. Wakefield is that we have a similar story, only in this case the roots of corruption in medicine go back over 100 years. Above all, you have to let Wakefield speak in defence. Of course he addresses the accusations. But can he get peer-review published these days? heck no.
      I know all this because I too am on the autistic spectrum, high-functioning Asperger Syndrome (like Einstein). And like all good Aspies, I researched and researched until I hit the gold standards. Wakefield thought the MMR vaccine combination was the problem; since then we skeptics have found the chief (but not only) devil is mercury. The vaccine makers will not admit blame; but I believe that mercury-containing preservatives have largely been quietly discontinued. The preservative used was thimerosal aka thiomersal. Mercury should never have been used. Think mad hatters.

      • The only problem with this theory is that there is no evidence to support it.
        Vaccine companies are taking the mercury out because they are tired of being sued, not because of any known problems.

        • “Vaccine companies are taking the mercury out because they are tired of being sued,”

          Are they really removing mercury? My doctor some years ago told me there is no mercury in vaccines any more because they now use Thimerosal. I told her, that was a trade name for the mercury substance they used. Deer in headlights look.

          So I am aware of the marketing efforts to get rid of the stigma of mercury. I also know the amount is low, but that mercury accumulates, I also have amalgam fillings, and replace them as needed with the white stuff. They say the mercury in thimerosal does not stay long…

          • The last bullet seems to show it’s on the decline.
            “The use of thimerosal as a preservative in vaccines has markedly declined due to reformulation and development of new vaccines in single-use presentations.”

          • The last bullet seems to show it’s on the decline.

            Agreed, but apparently because it’s no longer needed in single dose vaccine applications.

            Maybe I misunderstood your comment?

          • No: I didn’t have enough knowledge to ask a cogent question, so I was imprecise. You led me to information so I could be lazy here and work on work… Thank you! Essentially there are other reasons for the decline in the mercury product, so its use are on the decline.

          • You know, you’re an awfully forgiving individual, Mario.

            Are you sure you really exist?

            🙂

          • Thank you, I think? I am trying to learn how to engage with people on FB who post drivel, so that I can call them out, without saying “moron” and pointing them to the truth. I have literally gotten 2 heartfelt apologies from people. One apologized for painting me with a “noose and kerosene” the other painted me with white privilege and apologized for that too. Basically, people post untrue snippets of hate, and then people glom on hate the strawman. I get rid of the strawman and ask them to pin their hate on something factual. When they can not, some unfriend me, others stop posting. I am trolling lots of people and getting many conservative supporters to thank me and ask for help in other posts.

            I am doing my bit to change the world with the assumption that most people filled with hate, are misplacing their hate.

            PS- I have been know to be quite a mean D-head when I’m angered…

          • …And there was nothing in your case that needed forgiving… did I miss something?

          • did I miss something?

            Just my (un)comedic banter . . . no one would blame you for that.

            🙂

          • I got that, but maybe you were referring to another post.

            You’re a truly despicable person.

            /sarc just kidding

          • Look, based on your posts, I consider you a strong ally in the fight, and yes I mean fight for finding truth. We need smart people, who can articulate the technical and political intricacies of complex science-based issues. And you are one of them for sure. WUWT created this huge playing field, and we are lucky to have voices here.

            A while ago, when people asked why I engage with people on the Left, my answer was, “Well if I cannot change their minds with truth and fact, at least I can piss them off by making them look stupid” I am now trying to become less of that guy that pisses ’em off.

          • And you are one of them for sure.

            You’re too kind, sir (and I really mean that).

            I am now trying to become less of that guy that pisses ’em off.

            A worthy goal indeed. I hope to follow your example but alas, my troll nature . . .

            All the best Mario!

          • You’re good troll. But even if not a good troll, we need some balance, and you’re effective! I have had 3 people within a week, unfriend and block me. I saw it coming so I posted and tagged a lot of people throughout their dreadful lame lazy hate posts, to at least give them something to think about. Sometimes saying things factually is painful enough.

            The intellectual who was trying to explain that I did not understand BLM because of my white privilege [even though I am of Latin descent], could not see herself as racist. She said I was ignorant because I would not watch the WaPo articles she rapid fire issued. She was deeply offended that I posted a direct link to BLM showing their Defund Police Campaign… I becmae BLOCKED. Funny and sad.

          • “…Are they really removing mercury? My doctor some years ago told me there is no mercury in vaccines any more because they now use Thimerosal…”

            Well you have it backwards, and apparently you doc does, too.

            Thimerosal does contain mercury, and it was used in vaccines…for several decades. It was quickly phased-out in the US and Europe in 1999 because of the hub-bub over mercury compounds. Only a few vaccines – ones not recommended for children – contain thimerosal today.

          • Well you have it backwards, and apparently you doc does, too.

            Sure Mario’s got it backwards there Michael?

            Or did you *FAIL!* (emphasis added) to read the rest of his comment?

          • Michael Jankowski June 5, 2020 at 6:54 pm:

            As sycomputing pointed out: You might want to read the paragraph again and correct your correction.

            “Are they really removing mercury? My doctor some years ago told me there is no mercury in vaccines any more because they now use Thimerosal. I told her, that was a trade name for the mercury substance they used. Deer in headlights look.”

          • Please list them so I can say, “f**k no” when they are offered. Injecting mercury, in any form, into your body is as stupid as the Democrat idea of injecting Clorox the treat Chinese Disease.

          • Yep: I rejected the mercury injection and was not comforted by the fact that my doctors did not understand what she was injecting into me. Now, from what I understand, the relative amounts, (and I knew what it was several years ago) were low. If I recall correctly, it was like a can of tunafish. Which I limit myself to a few cans a month.

        • Indignant arguments by assertion may be cathartic for the arguer but they have a distinct lack of persuasiveness.

    • Completely disproven. Time and time again.

      BTW – Is Wakefield the one who was taking payments to provide a study to show vaccinations are the cause of autism? That was corruption at its worse.

  2. Harvard: Mandeep R Mehra, M.B.,B.S.
    Title: Professor of Medicine
    He is a Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation.
    Selected publications:
    #2 Mehra MR, Desai SS, Ruschitzka F, Patel AN. Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. Lancet. 2020 May 22. PMID: 32450107.
    Citations: 23,410 (next highest 3,405; vast majority of nearly 500 publications, single or double figures;)
    https://connects.catalyst.harvard.edu/Profiles/display/Person/104834

    links to:

    NCBI: NIH: The Lancet: Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine With or Without a Macrolide for Treatment of COVID-19: A Multinational Registry Analysis
    Mandeep R Mehra, Sapan S Desai, Frank Ruschitzka, Amit N P
    Erratum in
    Department of Error (LINK LANCET)
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32450107/

    • “We can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources,”

      At what point could they “vouch” for the data ? Apparently they had never examined the validity before publishing a paper with world wide impact during an international health crisis.

      What does this tell us about the supposed “peer review” that the paper was subjected to? No one spotted that the data was provided by a small company with no medical or statistical competence run by a sci-fi author and and ex-p0rn star.

      The situation is beyond parody.

      • Remdesivir benefited. It bought a little more time to run trials looking for some sweet spot that shows benefit above that of Ivermectin or HCQ. From the papers and analyses of papers that I have see n so far, HCQ + azithromycin + zinc is about twice as effective a treatment as Remdesivir. I think the jury is still out for Ivermectin though it is known to work in the same manner as HCQ – an ionophore for zinc.

        The thing to add for the more advanced cases of cytokine storm closing off the lungs is molecular hydrogen, 5%. It is a powerful and rapid anti-oxident.

          • Good Lord. Give it up on the “big pharma” conspiracy.

            Why didn’t big pharma make Ivermectin look bad? It’s cheap and widely-available. The same retracted article that didn’t show benefits to using HCQ did show benefits to using Ivermectin.

            Big pharma lost a huge number of active and near-term customers to COVID-19. You expect us to believe they willingly let these people die-off by burying/ruining HCQ in the hopes they could possibly be first-to-market with Remdesivir or something effective? That’s a huge gamble. Not to mention it would just take one whistle-blower to bring the entire thing down and put people behind bars.

        • ” HCQ + azithromycin + zinc is about twice as effective a treatment as Remdesivir. I think the jury is still out for Ivermectin though it is known to work in the same manner as HCQ – an ionophore for zinc.”

          I would love to see the published DATA behind these claims.

          note I said DATA.

          meaning the ACTUAL patient data on per patient basis.

          all the 1s and 0s

          hint. there is no data

          • ok I have to dig out mails to copy recent conversations on the subject
            lets start with Wakefields data which YOU can find online
            what he said was the triple(new) MMR affected gut bacteria
            so moving on recently theres this:
            https://www.sott.net/article/435550-New-gut-brain-link-How-gut-mucus-could-help-treat-brain-disorders

            “Mucus is a critical protective layer that helps balance good and bad bacteria in your gut but you need just the right amount – not too little and not too much,” Hill-Yardin said.

            “Researchers have previously shown that changes to intestinal mucus affect the balance of bacteria in the gut but until now, no-one has made the connection between gut mucus and the brain.

            “Our review reveals that people with autism, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s and Multiple Sclerosis have different types of bacteria in their gut mucus compared with healthy people, and different amounts of good and bad bacteria.

            “It’s a new gut-brain connection that opens up fresh avenues for scientists to explore, as we search for ways to better treat disorders of the brain by targeting our ‘second brain’ – the gut.”
            ——————————–
            on Ivermectin
            making a mockery over their dire warnings of its safety in larges doses isnt it?
            https://academic.oup.com/jac/article/75/4/827/5710696
            In a study including a limited number of healthy volunteers receiving doses up to 2000 μg/kg (10 times the recommended doses), ivermectin was well tolerated and ocular AEs were similar to those with placebo.35

            With over 30 years of ample use and over 300 million people using it annually, ivermectin is, through its use in MDA campaigns, among the most relevant public health interventions in the developing world.36
            ———————————-
            and again

            https://link.springer.com/article/10.1208/s12248-007-9000-9
            A significant effect of gender was found in ivermectin pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers orally treated with 150 μg/kg, with a lower total body Cl/F in males compared to females (see Table 1) (14).

            In connection with the excretion pathways, ivermectin and its metabolites were excreted mainly in faeces and only 1% in urine. Positive identification was obtained for the presence of 3”-O-desmethyl-H2B1a, and 22,23-dihydroavermectin B1a monosacharide in urine and faeces, respectively 10. Other authors who tried to determine ivermectin in urine (8, 9, 16) did not find the parent drug nor its metabolites
            ——————-
            the orange tab top right
            https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0166354220302011?token=A57F110747916672B4FBBDA04C5E861F0D1BF93FA329230BFF35618DC1879B1E689E12629194272A63FD7871DD0209FF
            ————————————-
            another option
            https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/25/nac-and-glutathione.aspx?cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20200525Z2&et_cid=DM547462&et_rid=879156194

            Story at-a-glance
            N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and glutathione may be a useful adjunct in COVID-19 treatment due to the role they play in combating oxidative stress. NAC may also combat the abnormal blood clotting seen in many cases
            Research has demonstrated that NAC can attenuate symptoms of influenza and improve cell-mediated immunity. For every two people treated with NAC, one will be protected against symptomatic influenza
            NAC also inhibits viral replication and expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), in cells infected with highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus, and reduces acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)
            NAC may protect against coagulation problems associated with COVID-19, as it counteracts hypercoagulation and breaks down blood clots
            According to a case report, two patients with COVID-19 treated with 2 grams of intravenous glutathione experienced reduced shortness of breath within one hour of use
            N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is a precursor to reduced glutathione, and both of these play important roles in health and fitness. NAC has a long history of use as a first-aid remedy for acetaminophen (known as paracetamol in Europe) poisoning.

            It’s given in cases when you’ve taken an overdose of Tylenol or other acetaminophen products. It neutralizes the toxic effects of the drug by recharging glutathione, thereby preventing liver damage.

            NAC and glutathione may also be important in COVID-19, as explained by pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult in the MedCram lectures above. The reason for this is because of the role they play in combating oxidative stress, which is a main cause of inflammation and disease in general, and the cytokine storm associated with COVID-19 in particular. NAC may also combat the abnormal blood clotting seen in many cases.

            ——————————
            wakefield statement and the article
            Interpretation: We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers. —–
            Findings: Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children,
            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9500320/

            I happen to have a friend with severe gut problems and now under 50 shes developed Parkinsons so the gut brain link research I came across in increasing frequency interests me.
            and unless youve read the trials data on vaccines ,adverse event reports and looked at th e payouts from the very specific vaccine court(funny the vax makers claim immunity from legal comeback) running into billions paid for proven damage/deaths ?
            argue when you have.
            and almost ALL cases of Polio in the recent years are FROM the vaccine strain, so yes attenuated is NOT always dead or safe and can shed and not just polio but others
            ie the nasal flu vax for kids a few yrs ago..was less than ideal as kids given it then gave flu to the families, its why they stopped promoting it.

          • To assist here are some trial results for you
            https://www.kataeb.org/health/2020/03/21/french-clinical-study-shows-hydroxychloroquine-cures-100-of-coronavirus

            Of course as the Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine has shown, trials that show that HCQ are unsuccessful are accepted with zero review and published with many press releases. While successful use of HCQ is never published.
            If you were a scientist studying these publishers you would be curious and want to know why the huge discrepancy in standards for acceptance of papers.

          • Mosh if you were to just contract COVID and your only treatment was HCQ+ Azithromycin + zinc…would you take it?

          • Steve,
            I don’t see how there will ever be data. No one in the hospital who is stricken with this and feels that they are going to die will ever agree to be in the placebo group. New word of the year, comorbidities. I have 4 of them. I went straight to the Lancet when I first saw this hit the MSM.
            I knew it was a skewed bogus hit piece when I saw that the average age was 56.5. I wish I had the creds to have brought it up then.

          • meaning the ACTUAL patient data on per patient basis.

            It might be difficult to impossible to get this data due to data protection legislation.

            Will be probably also not be available for this paper about HCQ+Azi +/-Zn after peer-review:

            https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036v1.full.pdf+html

            The availability of genomic data is also a big issue as the algorithms to figure out phenotypic features are getting better and better. I’m not sending my DNA anywhere if I can avoid it.

          • I would love to see the published DATA behind these claims
            ===≠=======
            A bogus paper gets published immediately because it sends the right message. A far greater number of studies cannot get past peer review because they send the wrong message.

            There is lots of data out there that has been privately published. This is labelled “anecdotal”. There is also garbage out there labelled “peer reviewed”.

            Follow the money. Hydroxycloroquin, ACE inhibitors, ARB’s, there is very big money involved and it is very suspicious where the “peer reviewed” bogus results landed.

          • What a joy to see the irrepressible Mosh producing such amazingly good science …

            … in everyone else’s replies, that is, to his, er, stuff …

            I can add my two cents’ worth. All the replies validate and expand what I’ve discovered elsewhere. At all levels. Thank you all!

          • “…meaning the ACTUAL patient data on per patient basis…”

            You don’t seem to understand how medical studies work when dealing with privacy issues.

      • The lancet published an editorial On 16 May demanding “Americans must put a president in the White House come January, 2021, who will understand that public health should not be guided by partisan politics.” Oh the irony!

          • With all the evil that scum did he must have been reincarnated as a lower life form ….

            Can’t get much lower than a communist, ahem, I mean columnist for the Lancet.

        • Why the $@#% is a medical journal like the Lancet opining on political matters in the first place?

        • The left always defines what the other side is doing as being partisan. In their minds, they are never partisan.

          For many years the Washington DC definition of bi-partisanship has been, Republicans and Democrats working together to pass the Democrat’s agenda.
          Partisanship is always when Republicans refuse to do what the Democrats tell them to do.

          • Thank goodness we have a system that makes it hard for lawmakers to agree… which attempts to limit what gets passes as new laws limiting our freedoms, and which most often uses taxpayer money to buy influence.

            I used to say neither party represents me. Now I have come to the conclusion that although the republicans are not the solution to “all” of our problems, the democrats are the cause… Think chemotherapy.

      • Peer review was never that thorough. It should be used to highlight how checking of data from other sourced by the authors is rarely as thorough as peer review is made out to be. Only glaringly obvious faults get picked up, occasionally.

        • Peer review to often is pal review, yet the gullible public and stupid buys into it anyway.

  3. At this point, the retractions will have little impact. They achieved the world wide front page headlines they sought: “HCQ Doesn’t Work!” “President Trump Lied!”.

    In this brave new world, the message is all that matters. Science, even fraudulent science, is just a political adjunct to the message.

    • Just noticed that the WHO has restarted the large HCQ study worth this new update in The Lancet story. Their leadership is such a phony bunch of crooks.

      • It to bad the virus will be gone before said studies are over, we all are being played.

    • Exactly J Mac. They got the headlines and the narrative they wanted, what happened to the “study” afterward doesn’t matter as it won’t be as widely reported as the narrative they wanted pushed.

  4. The Lancet article was published as an example of a public rebuke of President Trump by Lancet editors who advocate the removal of President Trump from office. Imagine that: A scientific journal weighing in on such a political issue. This medical journal and its staff will not be restrained. Well, not wishing to appear so unseemly, yet it is also commonly observed in Geological, Geophysical and other societies whose main purpose is advocacy for their memberships.

    The editors of Lancet can not restrain themselves from lurching into a moras in part of their own making. Next time one sees a medical journal or a geological or whatever scientific group and its accompanying mainstream media megaphone say something about President Trump, remember, there are no honorable people in these institutions who are speaking.

    The withdrawal of this article doesn’t make President Trump right. It just means that the publishing scientific community are wrong and have to be publicly shamed before they act in a responsible manner.

    • Surely, the editors of the Lancet should be considering their positions and an investigation launched. Printing this hogwash has likely caused deaths and suspension of clinical trials. Also, many people (including doctors and scientists) had genuine scientific discourse and comments regarding hydroxychloroquine, ‘fact checked’ and deleted on social media by politically biased fact check ‘moderation police’. Are they going to retract their comments and deletions and apologise?

      • This iss wamp material which will take time to drain. Trump started with where he had to start, appointing new judges. Look at the UK government with Climategate. No good talking about bringing medical fraud to book if we have foxes guarding the henhouses. Medicine corruption started around 100 years ago in the US iirc so it runs deep. A lot still to come up.

  5. I have posted some of this before, but it is important. In the Lancet, volume 373, January 31, 2009, is the paper “Principles for the allocation of scarce medical interventions.” Authors are Govind Persad, AlanWertheimer, and Ezekiel J. Emanuel, the latter some might remember as being among those responsible for the (un)affordable care act. It recommends the “Complete Lives System” allocating the lowest “scarce resources” to age zero and us older folks, the highest around twenty diminishing some to about 50, then chrashes, leveling off a little later. Published in their “”Department of Ethics” it struck me then as now as eugenics, old style type, infants and aged get less, if any, resources. They have something called “Quality-adjusted life-years” and “Disability-adjusted life-years,” don’t see anything about mentally adjusted. Is this related to abortion/infanticide and help with suicide? They have rationalization for it all.

  6. You need to connect the alleged source of the data the alleged study utilized:

    A Study Out of Thin Air

    .

    Which digs into the details regarding how a tiny shell corporation composed of shell corporations allegedly negotiated, arranged, contracted and utilized specialty data agreements with hundreds to thousands of hospitals internationally…

    “Each of the company webpages above provide a LinkedIn link. Instead of showing company profiles with track records, however, the links all direct to the profile of just one person, Dr. Sapan Desai.

    Forming partnerships with hundreds of hospitals, formatting electronic medical records in dozens of different languages and pushing the forefront of technology in machine learning and AI is an insurmountable task for a large multi-talented team over many months, let alone one person in a few weeks.”

  7. 2 Jun: UK Spectator: Why can’t Neil Ferguson’s Imperial model be replicated?
    by Ross Clark
    Professor Neil Ferguson has been a little elusive of late – ever since he was forced to resign after he was revealed to have entertained his married lover at his home, thus breaking lockdown rules. But he did emerge from the woodwork this morning to give evidence to the House of Lords select committee on science and technology…
    One of the first questions he was asked was by Conservative peer Viscount (Matt) Ridley:

    Viscount Ridley: ‘Uppsala University (Sweden) took the Imperial College model – or one of them – and adapted it to Sweden and forecasted deaths in Sweden of over 90,000 by the end of May if there was no lockdown and 40,000 if a full lockdown was inforced. In fact, there have only been 4,350 deaths in Sweden until the end of May. This does seem to be a huge discrepancy and suggests there was something wrong with the model…’

    Professor Ferguson: ‘First of all, they did not use our model. They developed a model of their own. We had no role in parameterising it. Generally, the key aspect of modelling is how well you parameterise it against the available data. But to be absolutely clear they did not use our model, they didn’t adapt our model.’…

    Trouble is, the Uppsala team say (LINK) they very much did use an adaptation of Ferguson’s work. Their paper states: ‘We employed an individual agent-based model based on work by Ferguson et al…’

    Maybe they didn’t employ Ferguson himself to ‘parameterise’ it, but then Ferguson ought to be reminded of one of the basic principles of all scientific work: that it must be possible for other scientists to reproduce your results…

    Ferguson is behaving like one of those car manufacturers that tries to insist that its vehicles can only be serviced by its own approved mechanics. Besides the Uppsala team, others have also attempted to replicate the Imperial College model and have found themselves struggling – an Edinburgh University team found that it gave different results when run twice with the same data.

    Professor Ferguson surely has some further questions to answer on this subject. Neither the Uppsala University study and the original Imperial paper of 16 March, it ought to be added, have yet been peer-reviewed. It will be interesting to see what happens when they are.
    http://archive.vn/TVwPs

  8. This should be an eye opener for many but I doubt it will get much traction. A paper citing unsupported data that turns out to be questionable at best making claims and getting published in a (cough) prestigious journal?

    • Sorry for the double post, was getting a 409 error for a while and assumed that the first attempt didn’t make it.

    • That’s a serious problem. They probably won’t get sued. On the other hand one can see an avalanche of litigation against oil and gas companies due to their supposed effects on climate change, where no real damage has been done.

        • “Candice tells it like it is.”

          REALLY? Apparently, in her world, poor people don’t end up in jail despite being innocent, forensic pathologists never falsify reports (and get away with it for decades), and policemen never plant evidence on suspects (you know, like handguns or bags of dope).

          I haven’t studied the history of George Floyd, but am inclined to agree that marketing his death as a heroic martydom and presenting him as model for black youth is beyond silly, and reflects very badly on black community leaders (I started to write “leaders of the black community”, then considered how ridiculous it would sound to say “leaders of the white community” – what the hell IS that?).

          I have the song from the musical “Oklahoma” going through my head:

          “Poor Judd is dead, a canlde lights his head, he’s looking oh, so peaceful and serene, and serene. He wasn’t very old and he had a heart gold, oh why did such a feller have to die?”

          But beyond that, I think the lady doth protest too much.. ..Maybe she’s just too cute to be serious.

          OK, so the guy was no angel, but you don’t have to spit on his grave.

          What happened to him could have happened (and has) to anyone, black, brown, red, yellow, or white. All it takes is a psycho cop having a bad hair day. What was really worse about this incident was the three other cops lending a hand with the brutality.

          None of these bad actors should ever have been given a gun and a badge, and you have to wonder how many like them there are in this smallish city? This is not an issue that can be solved by training or retraining. You can’t make a good cop out of a psychopath.

          So how does this situation arise, and how to fix it? It arises by the sociopathic brutes being in leadership positions in the policy community, and it can only be solved by purging that community of such leaders, and then purging it of all the other psychos they’ve recruited and trained.

          Race has nothing to do with it. Without a black minority, police brutality would simply pick on other vulnerable elements of society. Next someone will be suggesting “if only” all police were women, or black, or black women, there would be no police brutality – fergitaboutit.

          • Before I make an opinion, I like to make it quantifiable, measurable. First, let’s use something that is not in question OK?

            2016 FBI statistics:
            2,870 black people murdered in 2016:
            243 of those murdered were at the hands of (all non-minority races of people put together)!
            2,570 of them were murdered by a black person.

            Let that sink in.

            Some people rightfully feel that blacks are suffering precisely because BLM movement forces people to look away from the source of the problem. If one truly cares about black lives, I would start where the evidence points.

            Your post on the other hand is riddled with factual inaccuracies.

  9. The Lancet, one of the world’s top medical journals, …

    Once one of the world’s top medical journals, the Lancet . . .

    There, fixed it for you!

  10. One would think that doctors would rub a clue and realize that a medicine used for 200 years that is currently taken at a rate of close to a quarter billion doses per day and is actually fairly safe.

    But no, they can’t even pause to think there’s something wrong.

  11. Wouldn’t it be a hoot if these reports bore out?:

    “Common heartburn drug may have helped 10 patients at home with Covid-19” By Elizabeth Cohen, Senior Medical Correspondent
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/health/famotidine-covid-19-case-series-study/index.html

    Ten people who were home sick with Covid-19 may have found relief with a common over-the-counter heartburn remedy, according to a study published Thursday. …

    In the report, published Thursday in the medical journal Gut, all but one of the study subjects took the drug within 10 days of first experiencing symptoms such as cough and shortness of breath. … They were between the ages of 23 and 71.

    “All patients noticed a rapid improvement in their condition within 24 to 48 hours of starting famotidine,” according to the report. … The researchers report they all felt nearly back to normal two weeks after taking the drug. …

    … the Northwell researchers are planning a double-blind clinical trial, … An earlier study by doctors at Northwell and Columbia University found that hospitalized Covid patients who were taking famotidine were more than twice as likely to survive the infection.
    * * * * * * * * *
    “Coronavirus: Ibuprofen tested as a treatment” By Michelle Roberts Health editor, BBC News online | 3 June 2020 | https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52894638

    “Scientists are running a trial to see if ibuprofen can help hospital patients who are sick with coronavirus. The team from London’s Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital and King’s College believe the drug, which is an anti-inflammatory as well as a painkiller, could treat breathing difficulties. They hope the low-cost treatment can keep patients off ventilators.

    “In the trial, called Liberate, half of the patients will receive ibuprofen in addition to usual care. The trial will use a special formulation of ibuprofen rather than the regular tablets that people might usually buy. Some people already take this lipid capsule form of the drug for conditions like arthritis.

    “Studies in animals suggest it might treat acute respiratory distress syndrome – one of the complications of severe coronavirus.

    “Prof Mitul Mehta, one of the team at King’s College London, said: “We need to do a trial to show that the evidence actually matches what we expect to happen.”

    • And wouldn’t it be a hoot if forthcoming studies support HFC’s effectiveness? Trump would surely trumpet them.

  12. Richard Horton needs to go:

    15 May: WaPo: Lancet editorial blasts Trump’s ‘inconsistent and incoherent’ coronavirus response
    by Derek Hawkins & John Wagner
    One of the world’s oldest and best-known medical journals Friday slammed President Trump’s “inconsistent and incoherent national response” to the novel coronavirus pandemic and accused the administration of relegating the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to a “nominal” role.

    The unsigned editorial from the Lancet concluded that Trump should be replaced.
    “Americans must put a president in the White House come January, 2021, who will understand that public health should not be guided by partisan politics,” said the journal, which was founded in Britain in 1823…
    Medical journals sometimes run signed editorials that take political stances, but rarely do publications with the Lancet’s influence use the full weight of their editorial boards to call for a president to be voted out of office…

    Lancet editor(-in-chief) Richard Horton has decried the British government’s response to the pandemic in editorials and public statements published under his name…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/15/lancet-editorial-trump-administration-coronavirus-response/

    • Beyond just Richard Horton, the journal “Lancet”—if it were ethical and honorable—would withdraw itself from the world coincident with admitting incompetence and malfeasance in publishing.

  13. I’m in with the idea of criminal charges

    This models has cost world trillions in known and unknown damages, but unlike the “climate emergency” it happened over a few months so that even the average dumdum (a la the Great Gazoo) can see it.

    Has to be serious repercussions for so much suffering, if only to establish precedent on the climate BS

  14. There is a trend developing of big corporate interests and the left’s interests intersecting and finding common cause.

    As Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs brilliantly exposed in “Planet of the Humans”, the renewable scam has proved lucrative for big business.

    Now the campaign against the drug Hydroxychloroquine that has been widely taken for a century but now suddenly turns out to be dangerous, (HCQ) again unites the left with big pharma. The left are overwhelmed by inchoate rage against a drug which bad-orange-man recommended, for none but tribal reasons. Big pharma are similarly innately hostile to any off patent drug because … it’s off patent.

    So once again the left and big business are in bed together over a politicised issue, the good but suddenly bad antimalarial drug HCQ.

    And both together again find themselves with egg on their faces as the whole Surgisphere fiasco is exposed as fabrication – a fact obvious from the start.

  15. Looks like the Lancet has just lanced itself again.
    Death by gradual suicide.
    Blinded by corruption.

  16. 5 Oct 2019: The Lancet: Offline: Extinction or rebellion?
    by Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief, The Lancet
    (LINK ELSEVIER)
    An unprecedented social and political disruption is about to take place. Nothing like it will have been seen for a generation. The outcome could be transformational. Or it could be met with indifference. Remember the antiglobalisation protests in Genoa in 2001? Or the marches against the Iraq war in 2003? The outcomes of October, 2019, depend on the intensity of resistance. What part should health workers play in one of the greatest social movements of our time.

    The occasion before us is 2 weeks of non-violent direct political action, beginning on October 7. Billed as an “International Rebellion”, millions of people will gather in cities around the world. They will “continue to rebel against the world’s governments for their criminal inaction on the climate and ecological crisis”. Citizens are encouraged to take as much time off work as possible. Extinction Rebellion puts it like this: “Because time is running out. We’re almost at the point of no return. The governments are doing nothing. Businesses are doing nothing. The situation is urgent.” There are three demands—first, tell the truth; second, act now; third, go beyond politics to create a citizens’ assembly…

    The climate crisis is one of the greatest threats to the health of humanity today…
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32260-3/fulltext

    3 Jun: Breitbart: Britain Unleashes a Green New Deal to Kill What’s Left of the Economy
    by James Delingpole
    UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak has found an ingenious scheme to ensure that Britain never recovers from the economic damage caused by the lockdown: a ‘green industrial revolution’…
    There is going to be no escaping this looming disaster, caused by a mass outbreak of green groupthink at virtually every level of the Boris Johnson administration – from Prime Ministerial girlfriends (green activist Carrie Symonds) to key members of the quadrumvirate (Greenest Gove ever), from Prime Ministerial advisors (Dom Cummings) to formerly sound Tory MPs who definitely aren’t any more because they’ve been put on the payroll and have to spout whatever eco bilge they are told to spout.

    In the latter category, we can include Energy Minister Kwasi Kwarteng who, shamingly, can now be heard spouting drivel about how the UK is going to become a ‘world leader in tackling climate change’ by launching a carbon Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
    Meanwhile, as Western nations choose to hobble their recoveries by burdening their economies with more expensive energy, the Eastern powers, led by China, are heading in the opposite direction.
    According to the Times, China is upping its coal usage…

    What exactly did Britain do to deserve a Conservative government quite this lumpen, embarrassing and un-Conservative? And given that the Opposition is actually even worse what can we possibly do to save ourselves from this ongoing, slow-motion train wreck of a disaster?
    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/06/03/britain-unleashes-green-new-deal-to-kill-whats-left-of-the-economy/

    • The British Labor vs Conservative political system is accurately described as “two cheeks of the same @r5e.” The Climate Act passed with fewer than six nay votes. It’s all pretense.

    • It’s funny because the progressives have been paving the way for these lawsuits!

      – In France, the law against the fake news, invented by the Macron government and voted by the obeying congress.
      – WASHLITE (Washington League for Increased Transparency and Ethics) inane attempt to censor Fox News on Covid (officially a lawsuit against Fox News for misleading Covid coverage based on the Consumer Protection Act) was promoted by the anti-Trump “resistance” (*) before it was rightfully tossed by a judge.

      (The suit pushed the insane claim that “Cable Television Is Unprotected by the First Amendment”!)

      If news media can somehow almost be prosecuted for Hannity like content, what happens to science journal publishing medical recommendations based on fake/non existant data?

      (*) also promoted by the leftist MSM, before they realized they were on the firing line too

  17. The study is an outright fraud, which anyone can discover by spending a few minutes looking up Surgisphere personnel on LinkeIn etc. The French popular newspaper France Soir broke the story, and the French media have followed up because of the notoriety of Marseille professor Raoult who has been prescribing oxyhydrochloroquine in defiance of French medical authorities. The British Guardian’s Melbourne editor Melissa Davey broke the story in the English language press, referring to interesting blog posts at the Columbia university modeling in social science blog. The Guardian’s attitude has been curious, publishing about four articles in the past two days, claiming credit for the Lancet retraction, while keeping the story off their front page.

    I borrowed the term “Lancetgate” from the French media for this article
    https://cliscep.com/2020/06/02/lancetgate/
    but the British press is avoiding it. The official story is “dodgy data company fools respected science journal” not “politicised fake science journal publishes rubbish to shame Trump and please Big Pharma.”

  18. If only the anti malaial drug chronoquenene was patente3nted and the big pharmicials could make money from it, it would be taken far more seriously as a useful drug.

    VK5ELL MJE

  19. The Lancet jumped the shark several years ago, when its boss candidly admitted they rushed through peer review a paper investigating with excess civilian deaths in Iraq so that it would be out before the US presidential election of 2004.
    For me, that’s a violation of scientific ethics.

    • Where the virus is not a partisan bigot, the Lancet is one of many “forward-looking” institutions that operates with compromised principles.

  20. Well, well, the cockroaches are scattering for cover on this as on their climate lies. Keep the lights on!

  21. Lancetgate is right now on French TV news channel BFM TV, which is considered one of the most pro-Macron news channel in France (although LCI is pretty bad too, very “progressive”):

    Philippe Froguel, MD, researcher (endocrinology, molecular biology, genetics) was interviewed on BFM saying the medical data in the Lancet probably doesn’t exist at all and that’s why Surgisphere can’t produce it.

    • The French media are more open to the idea of generalised scientific corruption, partly because of Professor Raoult, the Marseille infectious diseases expert who has stood up to the Paris authorities and continued treating patients with a medicine that works, without waiting for official peer-reviewed “proof,” and partly because the fakery and corruption is in Britain and the US and not in France. Google “Lancetgate”, and almost all the hits are in French, from France or French-speaking Africa.

      Meanwhile, the British media are reporting this in the most low-key way possible, with the Guardian stifling its own scoop. The politically corrupt Lancet is being protected as if it was the crown jewels, and not just another climate alarmist toe rag.

  22. I rarely watch the Biased Broadcasting Company’s news except the Local Bulletin which is very good.

  23. IMHO, the issue is really this simple: look at the COVID-19 infection rates for large populations (in the US and in other countries) that have been safely taking regular doses of HCQ for years to treat/manage malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, and compare those infection rates to those of equally large sample populations that have not been taking HCQ, controlling for factors such as age, population density and pre-existing conditions between the two groups.

    If the infection rate is indeed lower for comparable groups taking HCQ, what’s the issue? And why are studies by the WHO, universities and big pharma even needed when the most representative data is already out there?

    I am mystified—well, on second thought, maybe not—as to why these comparative statistics have not already been widely publicized in the debate over the efficacy of HCQ in possibly minimizing COVID-19 contagion.

    • Gordon,
      You offered “… compare those infection rates to those of equally large sample populations that have not been taking HCQ, …” Just what countries did you have in mind?

      • Oh, let’s see, there are millions of people in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, Japan, Australia, Indonesia—to name just a few countries—that have not taken HCQ at all, let alone for years.

          • Ron, as I mentioned in my OP above, millions of people throughout the world have taken HCQ regularly and safely for many consecutive years to treat/manage malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.

            Sorry, I cannot supply you with a listing of individual names.

          • Which countries are regularly taking HCQ and are having therefore a lower number of cases?

            Because that is your claim.

          • Ron, you are ascribing words to me that were never said/posted.

            Please quote the exact sentence where I previously claimed countries that have populations regularly taking HCQ are therefore having a lower number of COVID-19 cases.

            FWIW, the word “if” is not to be taken lightly.

  24. When in Tanzania in the nineties my whole family took chloroquine daily as profiyaxis for malaria for three years, and now we suddenly hear that this was dangerous? That research looked flawed from the inception and was severely hyped by anti-Trump.

    • Some people (even tweeter handles claiming to be toxicologists) pretend that a drug can be safe when used on the general population (even children, even pregnant women…) OVER LONG TERM to prevent X and yet unsafe when used to prevent Y, because the toxicity is “too high” and unacceptable.

      I hope these tweeter handles pretending to be tox really aren’t. It’s plausible they aren’t lying.

  25. 213 plus countries are infected by corona virus millions of people are infected and 394,588 people died worldwide but there is no vaccine.What is the world doing to create a corona vaccine how many more months we see the people dying with corona virus

    • Trump said today there may be a viable vaccine available within a matter of months. He seemed very encouraged at the vaccine developments and also the treatment developments.

    • Henry: Look up the term confirmation bias. When one’s brain cells do not work properly, they seek comfort of the seclusion of ignorance. You are consistent, so we can rest assured that when you say something, the truth is elsewhere. One more place to avoid.

    • A PDF just for a link ? Crazy BS.

      On the other hand, why not a peerr eview before publishing that BS ?
      So, Lancet shot it-self by suicide.
      But yeas, they had a mission !

    • PS
      <

      Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements.

      Source

      Will they really make us belive, they had the authorisation to use all these datas for their study ?
      My opinion, they had no data at all, it’s a complete fake, from start to the end following the TDS agenda, and “The Lancet” was their vicarious agent.

      • I knew it was shiite as soon as Mosher touted it.

        I did skim it real quick though and didn’t see the word zinc in there. Someone who wasted time that you won’t get back ever, please let me know if they did or didn’t forget to use zinc.

  26. I would remind everyone as I always do at these times, that Dr Bob Marshall fought the Lancet and consensus for 10 years over his work that showed that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria. They told him it wasn’t possible because they couldn’t survive the HCL.
    In the end he was forced to drink the contents of his patients stomachs !!!!

    Within a day his agony started. It took 3 weeks of antibiotics to kill the bacteria. That’s what it takes to defeat a scientific consensus in the medial industry. TOO MUCH MONEY .

    He didn’t win in time to save my brother stomach but he did save mine. Thanks to a truly dedicated researcher

    • The stomach has an HCL concentration of about 0,5 to 1%.
      F.e. Helicobacter Pylori *) has no problem to cause problems to the stomach as has Escherichia coli, to offend the gut passing through the stomach, both using a protection protein against the acidic surrounding.
      Vultures f.e. have far higner HLC concentrations as have dogs and wolfs too because of their diet.
      *) And just that is responsible for stomach ulcer.

      I can’t believe, that as Marshall worked on his detections people didn’t know, bacteria could survive HCL in stomach, mayby not exactly how, but as fact.
      Background

      • So true: My wife a naturopath, and other non-medical people, have us take HCL tablets for stomach issues, whereas the dumb-as medical profession prescribe acid reducers. The former aides in proper digestion if you have underlying problems, the latter gets rid of acid reflux symptoms, but makes the cause of the acid reflux worse. Go figure.

        PS – the above is an oversimplification of course.

  27. Not corona but around that area

    Trusting medical science?

    “Make that eight papers: I present to you the Mysterious Case of the Two Papers With Identical Results.In this thread, we will learn how identical results can obtained in both Gastric Cancer as well as in Lung Cancer.”

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2020/05/31/what-would-we-do-without-peer-review-10/

    Or a growth industry! Further down that Twitter thread is

    “I am ringing the alarm. We have now found >400 papers that all share a very similar title layout, graph layout, and (most importantly) the same Western blot layout. This is a massive #PaperMill of (what we assume) fabricated data.”

    The Law of Unintended Consequences?

    Seems the time for this review came courtesy of corona lock-down

  28. I never thought that I would learn something about climate change from the Wuhan Corona Virus. I had previously doubted climate models because I thought they only partially understood the natural processes. The corona models were found to reflect the biases of their programmers and were almost always off by more than an order of magnitude. Since the same holds true for climate models, the climate models end up reflecting the biases of their authors rather than the reality of the impact of CO2 on the climate.

    • Well stated for the masses! We need the messengers to be able to articulate things in plain English…

    • “The corona models were found to reflect the biases of their programmers and were almost always off by more than an order of magnitude.”

      Is this true? Let’s examine:

      What is popularly described as the worst virus computer model, the Ferguson model, predicted, with very little data on the Wuhan virus, 500,000 unmitigated deaths in the UK, and what is described as the best virus computer model, which now has all the latest data about the Wuhan virus is currently predicting 370,000 unmitigated deaths from Wuhan virus.

      So the 500,000 figure was an educated guess because there was very little information about the Wuhan virus to input into the model at the time, and the 370,000 is a prediction that has all current data available about the Wuhan virus, input into its prediction. The guy that had to make a guess only missed it by 130,000. Not enough to change the shutdown policy.

      So wringing hands over the Ferguson model is a waste of time. It was off a little, but not enough to make a difference in social distancing. Fixating on the Ferguson model is a tactic of those who want social distancing to be a bad idea, and want to throw cold water on goverments doing the same in the future.

      They would be singing a different tune if the Wuhan virus was as lethal as the Ebola virus. The next virus to come along might just be like that. People who trash social distancing for unscientific reasons (the economy) may influence policy makers in the future and cause them to hesitate to act, and that hesitation might cost the lives of millions of people.

      An order of magnitude increase in the number of virus deaths caused by emotional reactons to the last virus pandemic..

Comments are closed.