LancetGate: Pulling a Fast One on Proponents of Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine

[GURPS]

Nevertheless, despite all of the above, after publishing the contrary study by Drs. Mehra and Desai, the Lancet successfully lobbied the World Health Organization to suspend all clinical trials of HCQ. And, for added measure, France has banned its use.

So, how was it that the the Lancet article wound up contradicting the findings of HCQ’s many advocates? Was it because the study pertained to the treatment of hospitalized patients whose COVID-19 had progressed to the point where HCQ would no longer be effective? In other words, to paraphrase Dr. Risch’s abstract in the American Journal of Epidemiology, was the Mehra–Desai study based on “irrelevant evidence” about the use of HCQ to treat “inpatients” whose COVID-19 had reached the point where it was “very different” from the “early outpatient” phase of the disease?

​

Well, it turns out that the answers to those questions can’t be found in the study. As a matter of fact, the data on which the study is purportedly based are being seriously questioned by the scientific community.

On May 28, 2020, dozens of eminent “clinicians, medical researchers, statisticians and ethicists from [universities and medical centers] across the world” addressed an open letter to the study’s authors and the editor of the Lancet in which they raised “both methodological and data integrity concerns.” Here are some of the highlights:

1. The study’s authors did not indicate the “severity” of the disease being treated. Was it early on in the COVID-19 progression or late in the process? Similarly, they did not indicate the dosages of HCQ or CQ used.
2. The authors have not adhered to “standard practices in the machine learning and statistics community. They have not released their code or data. There is no data/code sharing and availability statement in the paper.”
3. There was no mention of the countries or hospitals from which the data were purportedly obtained, and the authors have denied requests for that information.
4. The numbers of cases and deaths as well as the detailed data collection from Surgisphere-associated hospitals in Africa “seem unlikely.”
5. Reported ratios of HCQ to CQ are “implausible.”

The open letter then states that “it is imperative” that “Surgisphere provides details on data provenance” and that there be “independent validation” and “additional analyses” by “at least one other independent and respected institution” to “assess the validity of the [study’s] conclusions.”

https://spectator.org/lancetgate-pu...onents-of-hydroxychloroquine-and-chloroquine/

 

[glhs837]

Wheneve I hear the Lancet, I remember that half assed study they used to claim we killed a couple hundred thousand people in Iraq. Thing wa the biggest POS and should have been laughed off. "We interviewed some people, then did something a three year old wouldnt accept as math, and WHAMMO, 650,000 dead"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance...BC), who compiles a,deaths related to the war.

 

[GURPS]

Whenever I hear the Lancet,

I never heard of this rag until this article

 

[GURPS]

Medical Journal Issues “Expression Of Concern” Over Study On Alleged Dangers Of Hydroxychloroquine


The medical journals announced they were reviewing two different studies after The Guardian reported on implausible and contradictory statements and claims made by Desai and Surgisphere, launched in 2008 originally as a medical textbook publisher. The Lancet study focused on the health impacts of hydroxychloroquine, a decades-old treatment for malaria and potential coronavirus treatment touted by President Trump. The NEJM study tracked the use of several common heart medications on patients with COVID-19.
More than 120 doctors and medical professionals sent an open letter to The Lancet editor Richard Horton on May 28 outlining ten problems with the study and requesting that Horton make the underlying data and methods available for other experts to review.

“The authors have not adhered to standard practices in the machine learning and statistics community. They have not released their code or data,” the letter says. “There was no ethics review.”

Questions over the veracity of the hydroxychloroquine study began after The Guardian Australia published a May 27 story on discrepancies between the study’s claims on COVID-19 death totals in Australia and data reported by Johns Hopkins University. The study claimed that 73 Australians had died from COVID-19 by April 21, but Johns Hopkins did not report Australia hitting that number until two days later. Desai blamed the discrepancy on a classification error; Surgisphere accidentally included an Asian hospital in the data set for Australia.

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

Medical Journal Retracts Study Claiming Hydroxychloroquine Is Dangerous


The Lancet, the medical journal that published the original study in late May, said in a statement that they “can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources,” and “due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.”

“We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic,” they said. “We deeply apologise to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.”

The study claimed to have found that there was no benefit from using hydroxychloroquine to treat patients with COVID-19, and that the drug “was associated with an increased hazard for clinically significant occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias and increased risk of in-hospital death with COVID-19.”

It found that patients who took the drug had a 34% increased chance of death and a 137% increased risk for heart arrhythmias, according to the Washington Post.

 

[GURPS]

Lancet Formally Retracts Fake Hydroxychloroquine Study Used By Media To Attack Trump

Legacy media meanwhile, with its animus for Trump, used the study to attack the president and his physician for taking a medication that had anecdotally shown potential promise in treatment of infection while posing few risks. Trump had previously touted the possible benefits of the medication approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use during press briefings to reporters who pinned the death of an uninfected man who drank fish tank cleaner outside of medical guidance on the president.

 

[Hijinx]

It is no problem solving the issues with HCQ.
Simply follow the money.