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.
The non-governmental organisation Airwars undertakes detailed assessments of incidents in the Gaza Strip and often finds that not all names of identifiable victims are included in the Ministry’s list. Furthermore, the UN estimates that, by Feb 29, 2024, 35% of buildings in the Gaza Strip had been destroyed, so the number of bodies still buried in the rubble is likely substantial, with estimates of more than 10,000.
Armed conflicts have indirect health implications beyond the direct harm from violence. Even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases. The total death toll is expected to be large given the intensity of this conflict; destroyed health-care infrastructure; severe shortages of food, water, and shelter; the population’s inability to flee to safe places; and the loss of funding to UNRWA, one of the very few humanitarian organisations still active in the Gaza Strip.
In recent conflicts, such indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths. Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. Using the 2022 Gaza Strip population estimate of 2 375 259, this would translate to 7·9% of the total population in the Gaza Strip.
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.
At what rate it will get certified a genocide…
Population of Gaza is like 2 million. 200k is 10%
Literal decimation.
Waffen-IDF working OT
😢💔
And with a tiny minority of exceptions in the world, no one gives a shit
Damn that’s dark.
Lancet is the same journal which published Andrew Wakefield’s bs claim that vaccines cause autism.
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