The Lancet, one of the top medical journals, has retracted a study questioning the safety of treating Covid-19 with anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine following controversy surrounding the research firm behind it.
The retraction came at the request of the study’s authors, who admitted they could “no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.”
“We deeply apologize to you, the editors and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused,” the authors added.
The data used in the study — and also employed the World Health Organization, which only recently resumed testing the anti-malaria drug — appeared to show that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine caused higher death rates in test subjects.
That data came from the healthcare analytics firm Surgisphere, which has come under serious scrutiny in recent days as details about the company have come to light.
Though the firm claimed to have gathered their data from thousands of patients at hundreds of hospitals worldwide, an independent investigation has brought the validity of their research into question, claiming they may have conflated numbers. The firm was also found to have almost no online presence and only a handful of employees, one of whom is a science fiction writer and another who is an “adult” entertainer.
Lancet previously admitted “concern” over their study after the facts came to light about the research firm they relied on.
Their study went further than others that questioned the benefits provided by the anti-malaria drugs by actually suggesting those taking it had a higher mortality rate. This conclusion created concerns in the medical community and halted global trials.
Hydroxychloroquine first got attention from many medical experts and the mainstream media after President Donald Trump promoted it as a possible treatment for patients suffering from Covid-19.
Surgisphere has responded to criticism of their research in a statement on their website where they defend the validity of their data registry, and claim they “clearly outlined the limitations of an observational study that cannot fully control for unobservable confounding measures.”
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
