They published (and retracted) a key study that linked anti-malarial drug HCQ to increased risk of death and irregularity in heart rhythms in coronavirus patients.
That is to be expected with cutting edge research. Studies get retracted all the time. The vetting process is not perfect and never can be. Especially when there are bad actors gaming the system.
You could attack Lancet and Elsevier in general on other grounds. But this in my opinion is not one of them.
Regardless of the Hamas issue, that anti-vax publication did untold harm. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary vetting.
Am going off topic, but the BMJ (another titan in the journal industry, and it is an industry) was responsible for publishing a paper incorrectly linking plaques with Alzheimer’s which ended up wasting billions of dollars through more than a decade of other followup studies chasing that angle.
It was only debunked a couple of years ago. To be fair it is also irresponsible for all that subsequent research to have gone ahead, seeking glory for “the cure” while nobody cared to replicate the study.
As a science under-graduate myself I am disillusioned especially since my Mum has had dementia for thirteen years now.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
They also publish almost all cutting edge medical research. So what’s your point?
As if you didn’t know my point…
Their credibility is damaged enough to be sceptical about this report (which is not even medical research).
And here is another example:
They published (and retracted) a key study that linked anti-malarial drug HCQ to increased risk of death and irregularity in heart rhythms in coronavirus patients.
That is to be expected with cutting edge research. Studies get retracted all the time. The vetting process is not perfect and never can be. Especially when there are bad actors gaming the system.
You could attack Lancet and Elsevier in general on other grounds. But this in my opinion is not one of them.
Regardless of the Hamas issue, that anti-vax publication did untold harm. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary vetting.
Am going off topic, but the BMJ (another titan in the journal industry, and it is an industry) was responsible for publishing a paper incorrectly linking plaques with Alzheimer’s which ended up wasting billions of dollars through more than a decade of other followup studies chasing that angle.
It was only debunked a couple of years ago. To be fair it is also irresponsible for all that subsequent research to have gone ahead, seeking glory for “the cure” while nobody cared to replicate the study.
As a science under-graduate myself I am disillusioned especially since my Mum has had dementia for thirteen years now.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis