Study Falsely Linking Hydroxychloroquine To Increased Deaths Still Frequently Cited Even After Retraction

Epoch Times ^ | 06/03/2023 | Jessie Zhang

[SeekAndFind]

An Australian and Swedish investigation has found that among the hundreds of COVID-19 research papers that have been withdrawn, a retracted study linking the drug hydroxychloroquine to increased mortality was the most cited paper.
Hydroxychloroquine sulphate tablets. (Memories Over Mocha/Shutterstock)

With 1,360 citations at the time of data extraction, researchers in the field were still referring to the paper “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis” long after it was retracted.

Authors of the analysis involving the University of Wollongong, Linköping University, and Western Sydney Local Health District wrote (pdf) that “most researchers who cite retracted research do not identify that the paper is retracted, even when submitting long after the paper has been withdrawn.”

“This has serious implications for the reliability of published research and the academic literature, which need to be addressed,” they said.

“Retraction is the final safeguard against academic error and misconduct, and thus a cornerstone of the entire process of knowledge generation.”

Scientists Question Findings

Over 100 medical professionals wrote an open letter, raising ten major issues with the paper.

These included the fact that there was “no ethics review” and “unusually small reported variances in baseline variables, interventions and outcomes,” as well as “no mention of the countries or hospitals that contributed to the data source and no acknowledgments to their contributions.”

A bottle of Hydroxychloroquine at the Medicine Shoppe in Wilkes-Barre, Pa on March 31, 2020. Some politicians and doctors were sparring over whether to use hydroxychloroquine against the new coronavirus, with many scientists saying the evidence is too thin to recommend it yet. (Mark Moran/The Citizens’ Voice via AP)

Other concerns were that the average daily doses of hydroxychloroquine were higher than the FDA-recommended amounts, which would present skewed results.

They also found that the data that was reportedly from Australian patients did not seem to match data from the Australian government.

Eventually, the study led the World Health Organization to temporarily suspend the trial of hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19 patients and to the UK regulatory body, MHRA, requesting the temporary pause of recruitment into all hydroxychloroquine trials in the UK.

France also changed its national recommendation of the drug in COVID-19 treatments and halted all trials.

Currently, a total of 337 research papers on COVID-19 have been retracted, according to Retraction Watch.

Further retractions are expected as the investigation of proceeds.

[1of10]

“no ethics review”

Now there is a clue.
We have a real problem the funding to findings pipeline.

How is fixed .... I don’t know.

[1of10]

I lost a “with” and a “it”

If anyone sees them ...please return ...

thanks

[BradyLS]

A crazy leftist murdered her husband with fish tank cleaner and tried to pin it on Trump for mentioning hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness in combatting ronaviruses. (It’s found in the tank cleaner but not in safe, prescripted medical dosages.)

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Wow...

1. “no ethics review”
2. “unusually small reported variances in baseline variables, interventions and outcomes”
3. “no mention of the countries or hospitals that contributed to the data source and no acknowledgments to their contributions.”
4. "data that was reportedly from Australian patients did not seem to match data from the Australian government"

Other than those few problems, it was a rock solid study.

[ransomnote]

PING

[Gene Eric]

Let’s never forget the diabetes connection made to SARS — a relatively sudden respiratory issue (i.e., 3-14 days). Not exactly the systemic cause fatality for the diabetes demo.

Early on, I stumbled upon a study that linked diabetes meds to the increased ACE expression that attracts SARS. The links soon enough stopped working.

[ScaniaBoy]

Don't you remember? This was THE paper (together with the British RECOVERY study where toxic doses of HCQ were used in late stage patients) who gave the regulatory agencies reasons to close down trials with HCQ and stop emergency use of the pharmaceutical. Or as was written in the letter from the concerned scientists to Lancet:

The WHO has paused recruitment to the hydroxychloroquine arm in their SOLIDARITY trial. The UK regulatory body, MHRA, requested the temporary pausing of recruitment into all hydroxychloroquine trials in the UK (treatment and prevention), and France has changed its national recommendation for the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 treatment and also halted trials.

And of course even when the paper had been retracted (and shown to be nothing but a hoax) the regulatory agencies maintained their recommendations re HCQ.

(One wonders who paid MR Mehra et al to write this paper. If we only had any real investigative journalists....)

[rdcbn1]

Same here. Early on in what now is proving to be a scamdemic I reviewed a lot of research papers, patents and even CDC docs relevant to Covid that soon became unavailable on search engines.

[DocRock]

Bookmark

[ScaniaBoy]

I agree, but you can still find interesting articles.

In this thread on Zerohedge Z Free commented:

In 2005, the DARPA and MITRE hosted a conference in which the intentions of the U.S. Department of Defense was explicit. In a presentation focused on “Synthetic Coronaviruses Biohacking: Biological Warfare Enabling Technologies”, Dr. Baric presented the malleability of CoV as a biological warfare agent.....

I looked for other references to that conference, but so far did not find anything. However, I did find a paper by Dr Baric (save link!).

Synthetic Viral Genomics: Risks and Benefits...

It contains "wonderful" references such as "Retargeting of coronavirus by substitution of the spike glycoprotein ectodomain: crossing the host cell species barrier." Reading this paper one is amazed that we haven't had worse pandemics than the COVID-19 one. One shudders.....

[ProtectOurFreedom]

And that was after tens of billions of doses had been taken worldwide for a number of maladies and the drug had exhibited an outstanding safety profile. Their finding was absolutely preposterous on its face. But, like apologies, retractions and corrections in the NYT buried at the bottom of page 47, the damage from the false p1 story that they sought was accomplished.

[ScaniaBoy]

Their finding was absolutely preposterous on its face.

Absolutely! And therefore the editor of Lancet must also be held responsible!

(They published another paper in NEJM, but that was not on HCQ or IVM, but that was also retracted.)

[rlmorel]

It is still linked by people on purpose because untruth is useful for them and it still has purpose in convincing people of a lie.

I have no doubt there would be a large percentage of people who read those biased articles, see the official looking/sounding journal article, and conclude “Well, there is a study...”

It promotes the big lies told by the authorities during the “crisis”. It is the lie that is going around the world while the truth is putting its pants on.

[ScaniaBoy]

I have no doubt there would be a large percentage of people who read those biased articles, see the official looking/sounding journal article, and conclude “Well, there is a study...”

Yes, and you will find a large number of those people among journalists in the MSM, and "fact checkers" on "social media" - I would suggest that critical thinking is not the most highly rated skill among those persons.

[Bob434]

I 5hink I saw 5hem running down mains5reet along wi5h my “t” key

[Gene Eric]

What’s written is far more convincing than what’s spoken especially when appearing in the vaunted journals.

[rlmorel]

It has been devastating to me to see what has happened to my profession in all this. Very disillusioning.