[76lsjumb]

The Lancet has retracted the hydroxychloroquine article:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance...6/fulltext

On the one hand, the possibility (likelihood?) that the data would have been manufactured and gotten into the Lancet (along with the NEJM and JAMA, one of the big three general medical journals) is a major black eye for science.  On the other hand, science is very self-correcting and the problems were identified by other researchers, and the process worked.

The sheer sample size was a bit of a siren's song in that article in a way that might have made the article very alluring.

BC

On May 16, 2020, The Lancet ran an editorial highly critical of Donald Trump.  Suppose this study had contained findings that were favorable toward this drug, not unfavorable.  Do you believe it would have been ushered through to print without substantially more review that, presumably, would have avoided such a problem?  I certainly do.  But, given its unfavorable findings, it was [to repeat myself from another thread] obviously "too good to check."

I know the mantra oft repeated is that one side should be believed because it is relying on "science", while the other side should be disregarded [or, worse, chastised] for relying only on "politics."  However, "scientists" are people, just like politicians, and people -- scientists, politicians, and all -- have their own viewpoints, biases, and prejudices.  In fact, scientists are quite often quite political.  See, e.g., The Lancet [May 16, 2020].

Science is only reliably "self-correcting" if scientists make it so.  That process is jeopardized, though, when "science" is used by one side not to investigate and reveal facts, irrespective of the "political" side that might benefit from those facts, but as a means to silence an opposing political view.

As for the process working, maybe so, but I think the reporting of the study's dubious negative -- read: anti-Trump -- conclusions are likely to far outstrip the news of their retraction.  So, in that sense, it [the article, not so much the process] probably worked from The Lancet's perspective.

[76lsjumb]

The Lancet has retracted the hydroxychloroquine article:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance...6/fulltext

On the one hand, the possibility (likelihood?) that the data would have been manufactured and gotten into the Lancet (along with the NEJM and JAMA, one of the big three general medical journals) is a major black eye for science.  On the other hand, science is very self-correcting and the problems were identified by other researchers, and the process worked.

The sheer sample size was a bit of a siren's song in that article in a way that might have made the article very alluring.

BC

On May 16, 2020, The Lancet ran an editorial highly critical of Donald Trump.  Suppose this study had contained findings that were favorable toward this drug, not unfavorable.  Do you believe it would have been ushered through to print without substantially more review that, presumably, would have avoided such a problem?  I certainly do.  But, given its unfavorable findings, it was [to repeat myself from another thread] obviously "too good to check."

I know the mantra oft repeated is that one side should be believed because it is relying on "science", while the other side should be disregarded [or, worse, chastised] for relying only on "politics."  However, "scientists" are people, just like politicians, and people -- scientists, politicians, and all -- have their own viewpoints, biases, and prejudices.  In fact, scientists are quite often quite political.  See, e.g., The Lancet [May 16, 2020].

Science is only reliably "self-correcting" if scientists make it so.  That process is jeopardized, though, when "science" is used by one side not to investigate and reveal facts, irrespective of the "political" side that might benefit from those facts, but as a means to silence an opposing political view.

As for the process working, maybe so, but I think the reporting of the study's dubious negative -- read: anti-Trump -- conclusions are likely to far outstrip the news of their retraction.  So, in that sense, it [the article, not so much the process] probably worked from The Lancet's perspective.