A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling; HCQ Misinfo...

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling; HCQ Misin

Yes. Transparancy and reproducibility. Even top-tier journals are often chock full of errors.

umm...

The way that you get the details to reproduce the results
is by reading the papers
where they transparently details the methods
so the methods can be replicated.


In your system, how do you get the methods to other researchers so they can attempt to replicate the experiments w/o publishing papers for peer review?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling; HCQ Misin

Do you have evidence that people are conning their physicians into prescribing HCQ for them, and then using Trump as a backup?

That's an odd question.

Can you quote specific words which make you think I should have that evidence?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling; HCQ Misin

Even top-tier journals are often chock full of errors.

Of course they are.

Mistakes by researchers are part of the process, not the end result.

That's where the peer review comes in.
Other experts in the field look at the research and evaluate it.

The reason the evaluate the research in the journals is to find the mistakes.

Who told you papers in scientific journals were supposed to be infalliable?
That's who you should be talking to.
They did you a disservice

 

[Taylor]

Re: A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling; HCQ Misin

umm...

The way that you get the details to reproduce the results
is by reading the papers
where they transparently details the methods
so the methods can be replicated.


In your system, how do you get the methods to other researchers so they can attempt to replicate the experiments w/o publishing papers for peer review?

The question is not whether or not scientists should publish research, but whether peer-review "works" - meaning, it provides some basis for determining the quality and importance of a paper. Peer review is just the first hurdle - readers should never assume anything based on peer review alone.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Re: A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling; HCQ Misin

One of the weirdest things about the Trump Presidency is how a drug for malaria became politically polarizing.

We argue with idiots.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling; HCQ Misin

The question is not whether or not scientists should publish research, but whether peer-review "works" - meaning, it provides some basis for determining the quality and importance of a paper. Peer review is just the first hurdle - readers should never assume anything based on peer review alone.

It does provide some "some basis for determining the quality and importance of a paper".

There're many papers which're turned down.
There're many papers which're self-published.

It seems like the papers which withstood the initial scrutiny of the publishing review are at least a step above the papers which couldn't cut it.

Do you see the papers which couldn't cut the review to be of the same quality as the one which were able to pass muster?

 

[jmotivator]

Re: A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling; HCQ Misin

The world isn't perfect. Peer review works.

Peer review CAN work, but stating that a study has been peer reviewed should never be used by anyone to oppose scrutiny of a study, but those who wish to politicize science do. it. all. the. time.

Attempting to counter scrutiny of a study with claims of peer review is just thinly veiled "Appeal to Authority" fallacy, and all that "Appeal to Authority" does is tell everyone else that you aren't qualified to determine which authority we should pay attention to.

 

[Taylor]

Re: A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling; HCQ Misin

It does provide some "some basis for determining the quality and importance of a paper".

Yes, glad you agree, but your question was "what works better" - and like I said before, it's other scientists reproducing and trying to build upon previous work.

Do you see the papers which couldn't cut the review to be of the same quality as the one which were able to pass muster?

This sometimes happens, sure. Scientists disagree on the importance of research all the time. I've seen important papers rejected simply because the author chose to cite original work from the 20's and 30's and the reviewer wanted "more recent citations". It's not uncommon for graduate students to be heavily involved in the process, and while they may do a great job of filtering out substandard work, they also may make poor judgments as to what should or should not be published.

Typically what you would see, however, are not important papers that go unpublished, but important papers that were turned down by important journals and published elsewhere.

 

[Cardinal]

Re: A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling; HCQ Misin

Trump supports it so therefor it must be bad.

That's trump supporter cult logic.

 

[Gondwanaland]

Re: A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling; HCQ Misin

One would think people would celebrate this, that HCQ combined with other drugs is safe and effective, but I have a feeling It won’t be so.

Yep, here's the Gray Lady herself:
Scientists Question Medical Data Used in Second Coronavirus Study - The New York Times

Scientists Question Medical Data Used in Second Coronavirus Study

Medical records from a little-known company were used in two studies published in major journals. The New England Journal of Medicine has asked to see the data.

A group of scientists who raised questions last week about a study in The Lancet about the use of antimalarial drugs in coronavirus patients have now objected to another paper about blood pressure medicines in the New England Journal of Medicine, which was published by some of the same authors and relied on the same data registry.

Moments after their open letter was posted online Tuesday morning, the editors of the N.E.J.M. posted an “expression of concern” about the paper, and said they had asked the paper’s authors to provide evidence that the data are reliable.

The Lancet followed later in the day with a statement about its own concerns regarding the malarial drugs paper, saying that the editors have commissioned an independent audit of the data.

Both of the studies relied on an analysis of patient outcomes from a private database run by a company called Surgisphere, which says it has granular information about nearly 100,000 Covid-19 patients from 1,200 hospitals and other health facilities on six continents. Many health care data experts say they knew nothing about its existence until recently.

Both papers were published in May within a few weeks of each other in highly respected medical journals that subject studies to peer review before publication. Both had considerable impact, halting clinical trials of malaria drugs around the world and providing reassurance about the risks of blood pressure medications taken by millions of patients.

More Than 120 Medical Professionals Question Data Used In HCQ Lancet Study, Call For Independent Review | KFF

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Re: A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling; HCQ Misin

That's trump supporter cult logic.

Nah... that's reality.

 

[PoS]

Re: A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling; HCQ Misin

Is there a better method than having a bunch of subject matter experts look at the papers and debate the merits of the papers?

Yes, have the peer reviews done and confirmed before implementing the study/paper recommendations that are later proven to be wrong.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling; HCQ Misin

Yes, have the peer reviews done and confirmed before implementing the study/paper recommendations that are later proven to be wrong.

That's really a politician not understanding how science works sorta issue than a problem with the peer review process.

Getting published is just one step.
Then, after getting published, other researchers try to replicate or discredit your conclusions or methods.
They try to get those results published.

Research journals are not white papers

 

[American]

Re: A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling; HCQ Misin

Sad but unfortunately... too much truth.

The government should get out of providing grants. Since they’ve done it, science has become more and more perverted.

Well the underlying premise is the government reduces risk by providing funds to pursue ideas, which bares no profits if not developed to production. So many ideas don't make it, in fact most don't. But for the common good we do this. Unfortunately the honor and integrity that academia should be known for, has been compromised for a long time.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling; HCQ Misin

Unfortunately the honor and integrity that academia should be known for, has been compromised for a long time.

The price of them being humans I suppose.

Good thing we're not relying on the honesty and professionalism of politicians instead though.

 

[CaughtInThe]

One would think people would celebrate this, that HCQ combined with other drugs is safe and effective, but I have a feeling It won’t be so.

Hydroxychloroquine didn't prevent Covid-19 among healthcare workers in new study

 

[longview]

Hydroxychloroquine didn't prevent Covid-19 among healthcare workers in new study

I would think that is an answer to a different question.
I thought hydroxychloroquine was being evaluated as a treatment for Covid-19, not a prevention.

 

[minnie616]

Re: A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling; HCQ Misin

One of the weirdest things about the Trump Presidency is how a drug for malaria became politically polarizing.

I agree. [
Malaria is not caused by a virus or bacteria. Malaria is caused by a parasite.

So why would it have any effect on the Covid 19 virus?
Answer it didn’t

If the patient was helped it was the other meds such as steroids that were given along with it that may have helped some of the patients.

 

[snakestretcher]

I agree. [
Malaria is not caused by a virus or bacteria. Malaria is caused by a parasite.

So why would it have any effect on the Covid 19 virus?
Answer it didn’t

If the patient was helped it was the other meds such as steroids that were given along with it that may have helped some of the patients.

Exactly the point I tried to make in another thread; it's been proven safe in the application for which it was developed-fighting Malarial parasites, not viruses.