Thought I’d bring us back to the Rona for a bit. The leading study that caused the WHO to stop trials on hydroxychloroquin was fabricated.
Reminded me of an earlier conversation in this thread
Shit, I was hoping to get in here before someone put this out there. Let me give a little context, if I may.
I had a long conversation last night with a good friend and fellow immunologist about this. Is this bad. Yeah it is. Two studies, one in
The Lancet and one in
The New England Journal of Medicine used data from an independent data analysis group that we are all going to be hearing a lot more about in the coming days, Surgisphere.
The Lancet paper looked at the benefit of HCQ +/- azithromycin in the treatment of COVID19. It found no benefit. It was also the paper that pointed out the supposedly significantly increased risks of cardiac arrhythmia when using HCQ for treatment of COVID19. This is by far the more problematic of the two studies involved as it concluded not only no benefit, but significantly increased risk. The NEJM paper looked at the potential risks of patients on ACE-inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers - ARBs (like lisinopril and valsartan- a couple of the most commonly prescribed blood pressure medications), and concluded that while underlying cardiovascular disease was indeed a risk for severe disease, ACEi and ARB's did not pose an increased risk. After publication, several red flags were noted in the data (which as I said was provided by this independent group) from both studies and both journals issued what is called an "Expression of Concern" with the studies. Each will review the data provided and decide whether to retract the articles completely or amend their findings.
The authors of both studies, as well as the doctors assigned to "peer review" these studies are certainly at fault here. While I find it quite difficult to believe that both the authors and reviewers had any nefarious intent in mind, I know that many will see it that way unfortunately and I can understand why. One thing I would say is that I have been a reviewer multiple times over the course of my career and have recommended and not recommended many articles for publication. When you are asked to review a paper prior to publication, you know who the authors are, but there is no written or oral communication between the reviewer and the author. The author is not provided the names of who will be reviewing the paper. Also there are multiple reviewers and each is at a different institution. So even if the authors did have nefarious intent, it would not be possible to get "in cahoots" with reviewers to push the study and thus the nefarious intent towards publication. But yeah, at least at the current time, pre-publication peer review appears to have failed. Who knows the reason why, though the pressure to get any and all information out as quickly as possible when the virus is concerned undoubtedly played a role. The other group that has a LOT of questions to answer is this data analysis group Surgisphere. If there is an intent to mislead, that is the most logical place to point the finger. I don't know much about them or what there potential motivation for providing sketchy data might be.
My sincere hope is that the (much deserved) outcry surrounding these two studies doesn't extend to other studies. Sure, we want to make sure that what gets reported in the medical literature is analyzed for validity. But at a time when a large portion of our population is already losing faith in the medical field and in research science, the last thing we need is more doubt cast upon us and a further erosion of trust in science. I just hope that each study can be looked at and judged on it's own merit and not simply dismissed as "lies and fake news" because of what is happening with these two studies. The NEJM has a long track record as the most reputable medical journal in the world. This certainly has the potential to be a black eye for it though.
The Lancet definitely has a bit of a checkered past, most notably the publication of the Wakefield vaccines and autism study, whose data was of course proven to be entirely falsified by it's authors.
Anyway, I'm sorry for the novel i just wrote and I am sorry I had to write it, but I felt it was important to say.
