The Lancet retracts anti-hydroxychloroquine paper

WAS a deliberately fraudulent “peer-reviewed” “study” rushed into print to score a political win against Donald Trump? It seems that’s part of the story in what has become the latest academic fraud perpetrated on, or by, the Lancet, a once respected medical journal that has become a clearing house for left-wing conspiracy theories and quackery masquerading as medical “studies.” The ABC – successfully hoaxed by a loopy perjurer in the Pell case – was thrilled when the “findings” of a paper dismissing the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine were published less than a fortnight ago. Its coverage focused mainly on President Trump rather than the science. He had not only described the anti-malaria drug as a “game changer” but was taking it personally.

This is a shocking example of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency.”

– Lancet editor Richard Horton is shocked – shocked! – to find there’s peer-reviewed fraud going on in here.

 
In eager lockstep with the Lancet, the equally disgraced World Health Organisation was even more impressed: it immediately suspended trials of the drug’s usefulness against COVID-19. To its credit, it was The Guardian – not the WHO or the ABC’s sham “fact check” unit – that examined the database provided for the research by shadowy US company, Surgisphere, and found several anomalies and oddities. Among the more colourful of these is that Surgisphere’s “handful of employees” includes a science fiction writer and an adult-content model. As for the company itself, hospitals and other organisations say they have never heard of it. This could be the tip of a huge scandal. Leaving aside President Trump, there are obviously many billions of dollars up for grabs to the pharmaceutical company that produces a vaccine or a proven prophylaxis for the coranavirus. It would therefore be interesting to learn more about the true owners and controllers of Surgisphere.

This entry was posted in COVID-19, Fake News. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The Lancet retracts anti-hydroxychloroquine paper

  1. gorgiasl

    Here’s a list of the Authors’ fees, grants etc. from drug manufacturers who presumably have no interest in the unpatented and very cheap Hydroxychloroquine becoming useful in the treatment of COVID19:

    MRM reports personal fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Roivant, Triple Gene, Mesoblast, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Portola, Bayer, NupulseCV, FineHeart, and Leviticus.

    FR has been paid for time spent as a committee member for clinical trials, advisory boards, other forms of consulting, and lectures or presentations; these payments were made directly to the University of Zurich and no personal payments were received in relation to these trials or other activities since 2018. Before 2018 FR reports grants and personal fees from SJM/Abbott, grants and personal fees from Servier, personal fees from Zoll, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Sanofi, grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Fresenius, personal fees from Vifor, personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Cardiorentis, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, other from Heartware, and grants from Mars.

    I am sure these affiliations did not influence the authors in coming to their conclusions.

  2. Another Ian

    Not corona but 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”

    And now Corona on the outside starting a run

    “15 retracted papers on COVID-19”

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2020/06/05/what-would-we-do-without-peer-review-11/

  3. nb

    Surgisphere is operated by Sapan Desai. https://surgisphere.com/about-us/
    Who would have thought? A Chicago address!
    Surgisphere:
    875 N Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60611

    https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86887
    “Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” they wrote. “As such, our reviewers were not able to conduct an independent and private peer review and therefore notified us of their withdrawal from the peer-review process.”

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21872119
    J Vasc Surg. 2011 Sep;54(3 Suppl):59S-63S. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.05.111.
    Conflicts of Interest for Medical Publishers and Editors: Protecting the Integrity of Scientific Scholarship
    Sapan S Desai 1, Cynthia K Shortell
    Competition of interest may exist at all levels in the medical publication process. Ensuring the integrity of scientific scholarship involves protecting editorial independence, promoting the use of scientific arbitration boards, promoting transparency throughout all stages of publication, and protecting the relationship between the publisher and its editors through an effective legal framework. It is incumbent upon the publisher, editors, authors, and readers to ensure that the highest standards of scientific scholarship are upheld. Doing so will help reduce fraud and misrepresentation in medical research and increase the trustworthiness of landmark findings in science.

  4. Snoopy

    Don’t chance it. Ignore the Lancet.

  5. Iampeter

    Trump supporters = always looking for conspiracies in all the wrong places.

  6. The Lancet has had no credibility since the Wakefield paper.

  7. thefrollickingmole

    I suspect the “Open societies” grant will have been funneled to this mob somehow.

  8. Suburban Boy

    The Royal Society and other peak academic bodies need to undertake a thorough investigation of the publication of scientific papers. The problem is not only fraud – as witnessed in the HCQ paper – but sloppiness and sheer incompetence. Peer review has only limited capacity to overcome these problems, in part because the review system has been gamed as a cynical circle-jerk among academics who are friends with one another (the foundation of the field of “climate change”).

    On top of all that is the enormous number of utterly inconsequential research papers that add nothing of substance to the world’s knowledge and are published solely for the purpose of giving the author something to add to his CV.

    Worse still are papers in the notorious fields ending in “studies”: women’s studies, black studies, gay studies etc, and social science more broadly. One such example of toilet-paper-in-waiting was a review published by The Lancet as recently as January, “Despair doesn’t kill, defending whiteness does”. The editor who approved the publication of that garbage was the very same Richard Horton who approved the HCQ paper.

  9. jupes

    So the ABC has published an article of a case where peer review has failed. How embarrassing.

    Could it be possible that peer review has failed in other field of science?

  10. John A

    “an adult-content model”

    Oh, is that what they used to call “a porn star”?

    Yes, pornography comes in many guises, including the adulteration of knowledge.

  11. local oaf

    Was it not the Lancet that published the bogus study reporting a wildly exaggerated death toll from the allied invasion and overthrow of Saddam in Iraq?

    The “study” released a few days before elections in the US?

  12. Bruce of Newcastle

    Lancet editor Richard Horton is shocked – shocked! – to find there’s peer-reviewed fraud going on in here.

    Lancet editor Richard Horton is a Rebellious Stinky.

    Lancet Editor’s Backing For Extinction Rebellion (28 Mar)

    Yesterday I reported how Guido had caught the Lancet’s editor, Richard Horton, red handed after lying about the coronavirus on Question Time. This occurred during a rant attacking the government’s handling of the crisis, despite the fact that they were actually following the Lancet’s own recommendations at the time.

    It turns out however that Horton is not the impartial expert we were led to believe. Last October he wrote this comment piece for the Lancet, praising Extinction Rebellion and calling for health workers to campaign for its far left policies:

    His rag has also been ululating against CO2 for quite some time.

  13. Zatara

    The Lancet has solid form for leftist leaning errors.

    Lancet MMR autism fraud, characterised as “perhaps the most damaging medical hoax of the 20th Century”.

    – The previously mentioned exaggerated Iraqi war death tolls.

    – Fabricated cancer research article

    In January 2006, it was revealed that data had been fabricated in an article by the Norwegian cancer researcher Jon Sudbø and 13 co-authors published in The Lancet in October 2005. Several articles in other scientific journals were withdrawn following the withdrawal in The Lancet.

    – Non-medically related “Open Letter for the People of Gaza”

    In August 2014 and during the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, The Lancet published an “Open letter for the people of Gaza” in their correspondence section. As reported in The Daily Telegraph, the letter “condemned Israel in the strongest possible terms, but strikingly made no mention of Hamas’ atrocities.

    Alas, the Lancet is anything but a respectable medical journal these days.

  14. Vagabond

    The Lancet is just the tip of the iceberg. Lots of other medical journals and organizations have been infested with woke and leftist ideology. Easy examples that come to mind are the BMJ and the MJA. There are lots of others. The ability to critically analyse scientific publications has never been more important.

  15. Farmer Gez

    Iampeter
    #3476243, posted on June 6, 2020 at 10:28 am
    Trump supporters = always looking for conspiracies in all the wrong places.

    Everyone else sees an iceberg, Iampeter sees a snowcone.
    The sanity lockdown has been lifted since the Greeks, you should get out for a breath of fresh thinking.

  16. Petros

    Who were the people that queried the numbers of Australians included in the original study? We can conclude that they are far more honest than those involved who were happy to go along with the fraudulent research.

  17. 2dogs

    Let’s be clear what this means: the Lancet has caused the deaths of people through its negligence.

    There are people who would have had their lives saved by HCQ who didn’t get prescribed it solely because of this study.

    I hope they get sued.

  18. Bronson

    Yam honestly The Bulwark for fark sake try something with a shred oc credibility at least.

  19. Lee

    Let’s be clear what this means: the Lancet has caused the deaths of people through its negligence.
    And all because of their pathological hatred for one man: President Donald Trump.
    Does anyone seriously believe that if a Democrat president had supported the use of hydroxychloroquine that there would have been the slightest outcry?

  20. Neil Ferguson and Lancet are all care and no responsibility.

  21. thefrollickingmole

    Worse still are papers in the notorious fields ending in “studies”: women’s studies, black studies, gay studies etc, and social science more broadly.

    Grievance studies.
    Possibly the most poisonous fruit of the 60’s.

  22. C.L.

    Let’s be clear what this means: the Lancet has caused the deaths of people through its negligence.

    There are people who would have had their lives saved by HCQ who didn’t get prescribed it solely because of this study.

    I hope they get sued.

    This.

  23. Chris M

    More than 50% of ALL medical studies are [email protected] and fabrications. You need to listen to the doctors on the coalface actually treating these people and ignore the academic, government institutional and pharmaceutical sides. Lancet is like ‘The Economist’ previously OK and now worse than useless.

  24. Richard Bender

    And the UK study showing it doesn’t work as a treatment and the Canadian study showing it doesn’t work as a prophylactic? Oh no, we won’t worry about those if it gets in the way of blind, partisan support for President Trump.

  25. Zatara

    And the UK study showing it doesn’t work as a treatment and the Canadian study showing it doesn’t work as a prophylactic?

    Ah yes, the classic un-referenced “UK study”. By ‘Top Gear’ wasn’t it?

    And “the Canadian study” by “I’m a Lumberjack’?

    Devastating debate points… not.

Comments are closed.