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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jamie Moody. Looks like someone didn’t go to Specsavers!
I rarely watch the Biased Broadcasting Company’s news except the Local Bulletin which is very good.
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.
Who did?
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.
Don’t know whether this fits in with this thread but here goes anyway:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/unreported-truths-covid-19-lockdowns-alex-berenson
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.
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.
Don’t try to force it on me, he’ll I’ll buy a couple rounds for you
Must say. I think this is good news?
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2020/06/05/what-to-do-with-covid-19-3/
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 !
Someone interested in an “a”, I’ll give it away 😀
PS
<
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.
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.
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
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..