Michi
I dislike attempts to rewrite history
Following up on an earlier post on the advantages and failings of peer review…
The Guardian just published this article about the Lancet's retraction of a hydroxychloroquine study.
If you don't want to read it in full, the TLDR is that
More importantly, this episode shows that the scientific method and peer review process are, in the long run, self-correcting and effective. There will always be some idiots who fabricate results and sneak them past reviewers for ulterior motives. But, in the end, the truth comes out on top.
The Guardian just published this article about the Lancet's retraction of a hydroxychloroquine study.
If you don't want to read it in full, the TLDR is that
- The Lancet published a study claiming to show that hydroxychloroquine causes a higher death rate and more heart-related complications in Covid-19 patients.
- The study relied on a data set from the Surgisphere database.
- Multiple researchers pointed out that figures cited by the authors of the paper did not line up with official data.
- One of the co-authors is the founder of the database.
- Following the complaints, information about Surgisphere was deleted from the Internet.
- None of the other authors had seen the data first-hand and were denied access to the dataset.
- Publication of the study led to a temporary stop of controlled studies into the efficacy of the drug.
- The Lancet has changed its peer review policy to be more stringent.
More importantly, this episode shows that the scientific method and peer review process are, in the long run, self-correcting and effective. There will always be some idiots who fabricate results and sneak them past reviewers for ulterior motives. But, in the end, the truth comes out on top.
Last edited: