Retracted COVID Paper Lives on in New Citations (medpagetoday.com) 66
Researchers around the world have continued breathing new life into a retracted study, which suggested that common antihypertensive medications were harmful in patients with COVID-19. From a report: Published online on May 1, 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the study relied on Surgisphere data to claim an association between renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor therapy and worse outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease. The journal retracted the paper due to concerns about fraudulent data on June 4, 2020 in a widely publicized move, but the study has continued to rack up citations -- totaling at least 652 as of May 31, 2021, reported Todd Lee, MD, MPH, of McGill University in Montreal, and colleagues.
Just 17.6% of verified citations acknowledged or noted that the paper was retracted, according to their research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine. In May of this year alone -- 11 months after the article was retracted -- it was referenced 21 times. "Our findings challenge authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and academic institutions to do a better job of addressing the broader issues of ongoing citations of retracted scientific studies and protecting the integrity of the medical literature," Lee's group urged. The hypothesis that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) may be harmful in patients with COVID-19 has been floated since the early days of the pandemic, with the reasoning being that since the SARS-CoV-2 virus enters human cells through ACE2 receptors, upregulation of these receptors could put patients at risk.
Just 17.6% of verified citations acknowledged or noted that the paper was retracted, according to their research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine. In May of this year alone -- 11 months after the article was retracted -- it was referenced 21 times. "Our findings challenge authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and academic institutions to do a better job of addressing the broader issues of ongoing citations of retracted scientific studies and protecting the integrity of the medical literature," Lee's group urged. The hypothesis that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) may be harmful in patients with COVID-19 has been floated since the early days of the pandemic, with the reasoning being that since the SARS-CoV-2 virus enters human cells through ACE2 receptors, upregulation of these receptors could put patients at risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Then what? Is there a step 3: profit anywhere?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean besides the rich and various monetary institutions controlled by them buying up all the suddenly available property as massive numbers of small and medium businesses go bankrupt while inflation goes through the fucking roof?
Re: (Score:2)
besides the rich and various monetary institutions controlled by them buying up all the suddenly available property
Buying up all the residential property, because as the SCotUS points out, "corporations are people too!" /s
Re: (Score:3)
Alkaline water protects you from the heathens and their conspiracies! Drink up! ... /s
(...why am I still worried about the takeaway from this post despite the /s and link?)
https://www.fda.gov/food/outbr... [fda.gov]
Re:COVID hysteria should stop! (Score:5, Insightful)
COVID is not a threat to healthy and you people; COVID hysteria should stop!
Even without arguing that it actually is a threat even to healthy people on an individual basis, you're outright admitting here that COVID-19 is a threat to unhealthy people. Do you have any idea how many people in the US are unhealthy? There are certainly unhealthy people (many of them are actually in quite good health for their age, but increasing vulnerability is inevitable with age) in my family, and a threat to my family is a threat to me. The same is true for a threat to the public at large
There certainly is a political divide and conquer strategy going on related to COVID-19 though, but you've either been taken in by it, or you're an agent of it (or a little of both, who knows?). If you really are earnestly worried about COVID-19 being used as a political tool, then you should see that the best thing to do would be to eliminate it. Everyone should get vaccinated and then, when everyone is, everyone should simultaneously do their best to isolate for a few weeks. Then the disease would vanish. Sure, little pockets could pop up here and there, but with quick responses and temporary local quarantines those could be stamped out. Even without a vaccine, the virus could have been handled early by a series of intensive periods of widespread self-isolation. Instead of a year and a half of mask mandates, etc. infection levels could have been periodically brought down to zero, or almost zero with a little cooperation and some periods of isolation every few months instead of continuously for some and never for others. With a good testing regime and contact tracing, self-isolation campaigns could have been fairly tightly geographically focused, as well.
Instead, because of selfish, almost sociopathic, idiocy like your post displays, everyone has been put at risk of infection all the time. There's been massive death and disruption to people's way of life, etc. All because some people have to be selfish, whiny, crybabies with absolutely no sense of duty or social or personal responsibility.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
For a disease to be eradicated, vaccination generally needs to be near universal. So children really should be vaccinated. The alternative is to vaccinate all the adults and then keep the children isolated from one another for at least one incubation period.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Red/Blue Divide in COVID-19 Vaccination Rates is Growing [kff.org]
COVID-19 is crushing red states. Why isn’t Trump turning his rallies into mass vaccination sites? [brookings.edu]
Here Are The Republicans Most Likely To Refuse The Covid-19 Vaccine, Poll Finds [forbes.com]
31% of Republicans say they are unlikely to ever get the COVID-19 vaccine: poll [businessinsider.com]
The most likely group to refuse the Covid-19 vaccine are Republicans who consume far-right television news (46%, up from 31% in March), while 8% of those viewers are hesitant about the shot (
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being ridiculous by bringing immigration into this. At the start of the pandemic, it was US citizens returning home from abroad in droves (mostly in fear of future travel restrictions) that brought the bulk of the early virus here. The travel restrictions were worse than theatre - because they masked the bigger threat by providing a scapegoat. There's no reason it would be different now.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is mostly the fault of Trump and his administrations total inability to communicate any sort of strategy and clear guidance and also to constantly issue hyperbolic statements about completely closing borders.
Now, people coming into the country certainly should be tested and go into quarantine for a time. However, the GP's focus on "immigrants" pretty much outs them as a racist/xenophobe. The fact is, about 20X as many people from the US travel abroad and return each year as migrate to the US.
Also, wha
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's what DeSantis said today. Couldn't have anythng to do with refusing to mask up in enclosed spaces, or vaxing. Meanwhile Florida is Number One! Leading the nation! Florida Man! /s
Florida makes me thank goodness for NY, and i never thought I would say that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure Florida's mask policy and vaccination rate has zilch to do with it. What does have something to do with it? it's fucking summer and people are on vacation, droves of people who have been sealed off from society for the last year are getting out again and moving on with their lives.
And with full knowledge that this was going to happen, and that it would be a problem, DeSantis did exactly jack s**t to keep the virus under control.
I mean look at New York who was number one last year, while the state was in lock down tighter than a nuns twat.
New York was hit first. And New York City has approximately 100% of people using mass transit on a regular basis, with large numbers of housing units sharing significant amounts of air with each other, with people crowding into the streets at incredibly high densities, etc. Their numbers increased from double digits to 6k per day in under a month. It's hard
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thing, your immune response from just having a Covid infection can vary, a lot, and there's not a precise way to measure it. Some people may have excellent protection, some people may have very little. It all depends on what your viral loads from infection were, how strongly your body responded and other environmental and biological factors.
That's why the recommendation is for those who were infected to get vaccinated after a designated period, the durability of the vaccine is much more predicta
Re: (Score:2)
"We are at 18 months of the pandemic, if the natural immunity was not good, all the people who got covid would be dead by now."
This is a nonsense statement that defeats itself, or something. Maybe think about what you are typing before you type it.
Posts mislead on Israel vaccine data [apnews.com]
"Since the start of the pandemic, experts have pointed out that vaccines are not 100% effective. In a July 5 statement, Israel’s Ministry of Health addressed the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine in light of the spreadi
Re: (Score:2)
1. Is nonsense. It may attenuate the affect, but you can still catch it and you can still _spread_ it.
2. Is nonsense. For one thing, since protection from a vaccine is a learned immune response, just like if you had the virus naturally, your point number 2 is in direct contradiction with your point number 1, so I don't think you really thought this through before posting. For another, while the protection does decline after 6 months, studies have shown so far that it's still close to 90%, which is a lot hig
Re: (Score:2)
Can't imagine why you'd think these vaccines are particularly "leaky." They protect against future infection better than an actual previous infection. If you've had COVID once and don't get vaccinated you have much less protection against the virus than a vaccinated person who has never had the real virus.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you took identical clones of a person, gave one the jab and infected the other with real live virus, then the immunity period would be the same.
That is not the case, however. The vaccine is highly efficient and targeted. It creates huge numbers of spike proteins very quickly, triggering a much more thorough immune response.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it seems pretty clear that we understand the science better than you do. I think you may be experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect, where your shallow understanding of a subject causes you to believe that it's simpler than it really is. So, because you fully understand your simplified mental model, you believe that you're an expert and that those who actually know more than you are fools. It's quite common, and most of us fall prey to it at some point, usually when we're young and inexperienced, t
Re: (Score:2)
This kind of "leaky vaccines" are pretty useless to get the "herd immunity".
All vaccines - every last one - are "leaky". They all depend on herd immunity to actually eradicate a disease. You are a fool.
Re: (Score:2)
These vaccines are not normal vaccines. These vaccines are "leaky vaccines", a kind of vaccines not normally given to the human population, but useful for veterinary strategies.
Looks like we have a scholar here. I'm so glad that you are here to enlighten us about the latest research by... some Internet conspiracy site based on the content and tone of your information.
The existence of the delta variant is a consequence of the usage of these "leaky vaccines" and was expected. The "delta variant" is not an issue if you have an immunity induced by a previous covid infection.
The delta variant and other variants are a direct consequence of large numbers of people being infected with the virus. The more people have the virus, the more times individual virus particles are replicated. Every replication that occurs has a chance of mutating. Mutations that hurt the viruses chances of replicatin
Re: (Score:2)
For another, while the protection does decline after 6 months, studies have shown so far that it's still close to 90%, which is a lot higher than an unvaccinated person.
Some recent research suggests that a natural infection provides similar immunity as vaccination [healthline.com].
So I'd say the jury is still very much out. My guess would be that milder cases are more likely to be followed by reinfection, and moderate to severe cases don't really need vaccination at this point. But there's still not a consensus, as far as I can tell.
Re: (Score:2)
The jury may be still out. Overall though, there are a lot of good reasons to believe that the vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity for a specific range of virus strains. Most likely, you have two curves, effectiveness on the Y axis, drift from the strains targeted by the vaccine on the X axis with the targeted strains in the center. The curve for the vaccine-based would have a high, sharp peak, but basically drop off a cliff to the left and right, whereas the natural immunity would be a lower,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
K, now control for people getting booster shots and lying about having already had the vaccine in order to get a booster. Care to guess when all the talk about booster shots started making the rounds? If you guessed late April/early May, have a cookie.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the pubs claiming that vaccine usage is divided by political allegiance. That would be the left, even though there is no evidence that mainstream political affiliation based on county voting records actually changes the odds of an individual getting the vaccine.
I didn't even name a politcal party in my post. Nevertheless, your assertion appears to be pure garbage. It's very clear that Covid deniers/anti-maskers/anti-vaxxers are coming mostly from what passes for the political right in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
If you really are earnestly worried about COVID-19 being used as a political tool, then you should see that the best thing to do would be to eliminate it
But then the libruls win! /s
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing how Covid was the first to be the political divide and conquer, when they could have used measles instead. Or perhaps they could have used mumps, Rubella, Meningitis, Scarlatina, Whooping Cough, etc. Perhaps even using Polio or Smallpox.
The real division is splitting those taking the pandemic seriously from those who play multiple rounds of Russian roulette with an additional chance of being crippled (because
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely agree, people should go out and meet more. Infection rates are getting lower and lower and start to threaten my comfortable home office situation!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's mostly a political tool. Although some politicians will obviously exploit it to there advantage, as they do with anything else, it's quite clear that they don't have any control over anything. It's rather a sort of neo-religious mass hysteria. Actually somewhat interesting to see such a pathological sociology play out, despite the annoyances caused by this stupidity.
Someone needs to be pubished (Score:2)
Either the journals should penalize the paper reviewers and editors or scientific community should boycott such journals. This has to be done soon before these secondary papers (which might be tainted) gain traction. All of the referring papers should be marked tainted until they are reviewed again and cleared.
Re: Someone needs to be pubished (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reviewers should not hunt for validity of data!
And the problem is exactly the journals themselves. They publish paper A. then they restrict access to paper A based on a time when publishing actually had a cost. So all scientists just email paper A around their friends. Now what happen if journal retracts paper A? nothing! because the journal is irrelevant after the paper was first published, even for distribution.
the journals dug that hole themselves.
Mass-Scale Gish Gallop (Score:4)
The Bullshit Industrial Complex* takes such retracted papers, cherry-picked samples, and half-truths; and spews links and copies all over the place. Most mortals are not prepared to cross check each and every one.
Unfortunately, F.U.D. works in practice.
* A loose but large conglomerate of those who profit from Covid BS.
[Citation Needed] (Score:2)
What's the current concensus? (Score:2)
Clearly people shouldn't be citing a retracted paper, but there's a big question of whether these new papers are basing their results on the retracted paper, or if it's just there as an example of something they believe for other reasons.
Either way, this is clearly a problem. There should surely be some tools available to easily show authors and reviewers that a paper has been retracted.
Re: (Score:2)
There should surely be some tools available to easily show authors and reviewers that a paper has been retracted.
It disappears from Sci-Hub.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then those researchers are extra sloppy, but because you're not suppose to use secondary sources except as a last resort, always trace back to the original.
As for links, that already exist, it's called DOI, but it is not standard to include the in many outlets.
Re: (Score:1)
How about actively abusing the system. Pay for a bad paper, get it in, wait a bit, retract it. There reference it as current all of the time. Now another fake paper reference, hiding behind a retracted one. They fabricate all sorts of data now, quite clearly, on purpose. Bullshit baffles brains and they simply try to bluff it on through, for what ever corrupt reason.
Duh! (Score:2)
It has been known since the beginning of times that the "problem" was the "treatment" of the comorbidity, not the comorbidity itself. Having a comorbidity did change the odds slightly, but not very much. The game changer was being treated with pharmaceuticals and those pharmaceuticals being the problem.
So many COVID experts.... (Score:1)
Where are the reviewers? (Score:3)
NEJM is a reputable journal, so the articles it publishes should be peer-reviewed. Why are the reviewers not catching references to this retracted article and forcing them to be removed? There is no excuse for missing this; the reviewers are supposed to be experts in the topic they are reviewing and should know about it.
Re: (Score:2)
> NEJM is a reputable journal
Relatively speaking, for medical journals. Which isn't a high bar to pass.
PeerPub Plugin Doing Its Job (Score:1)
To be expected (Score:2)
To anyone somewhat familiar with the shenanigans of the medical literature, this will be no surprise at all. No sector of the scientific literature is so rife with both fraud and incompetence as anything to do with medicine and health. It's an interesting question why this is the case. My personal suspicion is that it is probably more profitable to produce fake papers in medcial fields than in any other.