"Scientists say the affair raises serious questions about the way researchers and journals evaluate the data underlying papers that they publish, and may complicate the effort to trial drugs during the coronavirus pandemic.
"“This whole event is catastrophic — it is problematic for the journals involved, it is problematic for the integrity of science, it is problematic for medicine, and it is problematic for the notion of clinical trials and evidence generation,” says Ian Kerridge, a bioethicist at the University of Sydney, Australia.
"Both papers relied on proprietary data analysed from electronic health records that were apparently gathered from hundreds of hospitals around the world by Surgisphere. But after critics raised questions about the studies, the firm did not make its raw data available to third-party auditors for validation. According to the retraction notice in theLancet, Surgisphere was concerned that transferring the data would violate "client agreements and confidentiality requirements".
"“Since we do not have the ability to verify the primary data or primary data source, I no longer have confidence in the origination and veracity of the data, nor the findings they have led to,” said Mandeep Mehra, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, who was the lead author on both studies." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01695-w?fbclid=IwAR2zTIGiBDw-SJ5sWbxjehJT5AkZjrJtFJKXAjV9UWPbHD4ep1cR7GlS0yM
The problem here is the Lancet published without due diligence on the veracity of the report.
The fact that Surgisphere refused to release data (anonymised) for peer review explains why the paper was withdrawn... my understanding is that it was click bait... the curse of all previously respected media, including the ABC, which damages the credibility of the media concerned.
Even the lead author, Mandeep Mehra, says (s)he "no longer has confidence" in the data.
There are other studies using appropriate methods to determine if HCQ has any significant beneficial effects on covid infection.
You make a false assumption that I "shoot the messenger"... Your posts are all in favour of a drug which is dangerous and must needs be prescribed by an authorised prescriber. You "believe in" HCQ purely on the strength of an idiot scammer, Trump, and attempt to discredit any who disagree with you.
I don't dislike you... I don't know you... I may call you ignorant with justification because you refuse to consider genuine scientific information in preference to your belief... this is ignorance,. Its not a matter of dislike its a matter of being able to adapt your beliefs when the evidence contradicts your beliefs.
Scott.
