
Widely disseminated hydroxychlroquine study retracted by authors - ed25519FUUU
https://mobile.twitter.com/TheLancet/status/1268613313702891523
======
throwaway9482
So if I’m reading this right, the authors retracted the study because they
weren’t able to get more details about the anonymous data they used, as the
org who provided the anonymous data refuses to share more details about it on
account of patient confidentiality agreements

Edit: I think I found the statement from the org who has the sensitive data
... [https://surgisphere.com/2020/05/29/response-to-widespread-
re...](https://surgisphere.com/2020/05/29/response-to-widespread-reaction-to-
recent-lancet-article-on-hydroxychloroquine/)

It includes:

> We also take data privacy very seriously. Our registry is an aggregation of
> customers who use our QuartzClinical data platform. Our strong privacy
> standards are a major reason that hospitals trust Surgisphere and we have
> been able to collect data from over 1,200 institutions across 46 countries.
> While our data use agreements with these institutions prevents us from
> sharing patient level data or customer names, we are able to complete
> appropriate analyses and share aggregate findings to the wider scientific
> community.

And...

> We believe that an independent academic audit that validates those three
> functions as it relates to our papers in the New England Journal of Medicine
> and The Lancet will bring further transparency to our work, further
> highlight the quality of our work, and also continue to deserve the
> confidence of our work by our colleagues.

>

> This process will follow strict boundaries as it relates to our data use
> agreements, among other considerations. _We are pursuing such an independent
> audit with all due haste while ensuring compliance with various legal and
> regulatory concerns._ [my emphasis]

~~~
bmarquez
> The Surgisphere registry is an aggregation of the deidentified electronic
> health records of customers of QuartzClinical, Surgisphere’s machine
> learning program and data analytics platform. Surgisphere directly
> integrates with the EHRs of our hospital customers to provide them
> actionable data insights to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

I would be concerned if I was a patient whose doctor used Surgisphere. It
sounds like Surgisphere has full access to electronic health data, and it's
not clear if patients clearly consented to this...otherwise they'd be able to
release more detailed information.

They say it's "deidentified", but if you have a list of age, gender, medical
conditions, location, and medications taken (etc) how hard would it be to
"reidentify" someone?

------
chrisco255
What troubles me is that people politicized a potentially life-saving
treatment. That's how dangerous our political climate has gotten. Orange man
says HCQ good, but orange man bad therefore HCQ bad.

~~~
javagram
The issue was also that “orange man” was not basing his statements on any
convincing evidence.

However people across the world associate the prestige and respects of the
POTUS office as conferring authority on his statements. They think he has
access to sources of info they may not (His HCQ boosterism seems to have been
based on tweets and watching Fox News cable hosts though, no inside info).

~~~
lolbrels
I have always found it strange that some people think Trump just says these
things of his own volition. As if the President of the United States wouldn't
be advised by some very, if not the most intelligent people our country has to
offer. I guess some would say the blind faith is dangerous but at the same
time I look at it as being common sense that our President would not advise
something that could potentially kill people.

~~~
javagram
The POTUS is certainly advised by some very smart people but he has a mind of
his own.

Analysis of his tweets have shown they often match the programming of his
favorite Fox News TV shows exactly. (A time stamped remark based on something
he sees on fox, then an equal delay and a new Tweet based on programming a
similar amount later in the show).

This dynamic tension between the advice of experts and Fox News that Trump
receives played out very visible in the HCQ saga where Dr. Fauci in the live
press conferences kept trying to walk back Trump’s remarks in the same
conferences. [https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/20/trump-coronavirus-
drug-j...](https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/20/trump-coronavirus-drug-just-a-
feeling/)

> WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday admitted that his enthusiasm for an
> antimalarial drug unproven as a coronavirus treatment was based largely on
> gut instinct, after an open disagreement with the nation’s top infectious
> disease expert at a White House press briefing.

> When reporters asked Tony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of
> Allergy and Infectious Diseases, whether the drug hydroxychloroquine was
> effective at preventing coronavirus, he said simply: “The answer is no.”

> But when Trump came back to the microphone, he told reporters that “we ought
> to give it a try.”

> “I think we disagree a little bit,” Trump added. “I feel good about it.
> That’s all it is, just a feeling, you know, smart guy. I feel good about
> it.”

------
boomboomsubban
Haven't there been several other studies showing it has largely been
ineffective? There was a completely unrelated one yesterday about how it
didn't seem to help prevent catching the virus.

[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2020388](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2020388)

~~~
lbeltrame
Indeed, it doesn't help _post exposure_. UMN is doing two other trials, one
for _pre exposure_ and one for _treatment_. IIRC, all of them do not use zinc
or macrolides. (Some patients of the post exposure prophylaxis trial used
zinc, but there's no statistical difference without, although the authors warn
about confounding factors).

Some important limitations of the study, results notwithstanding:

\- There were basically no PCR-confirmed tests, due to lack of testing
materials, and patients reported symptoms themselves

\- The whole thing (reporting) was done via email or telephone, no in person
checks (even HCQ or placebo was shipped to the participants)

David Boulware (the study's PI) on Twitter, a couple of weeks ago, complained
that he sought funding from the NIH for this trial, but he got none.

I thought it was all said and done for post exposure prophylaxis, but at least
NEJM's editor is not of the same opinion, and mentions that even in this field
of application there are still unknowns[1].

There are larger trials going on, like UK's RECOVERY, which will likely give
firmer answers.

[1]
[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2020388](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2020388)

------
programmarchy
Thankfully, this was discovered by some tenacious independent researchers.
Does anyone have the scoop on who sounded the alarm how they were able to
bring the issue to light?

Edit: So apparently this study was just a preprint and not even peer reviewed
yet. I don't see why it carried so much weight in the media and WHO decision
if that's the case. I think it's probably a good thing that it was scrutinized
before it even hit peer review. Found a pretty good writeup here:

[https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/25/this-
contr...](https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/25/this-
controversial-hydroxychloroquine-paper-whats-lancet-gonna-do-about-it/)

~~~
dwaltrip
The media does not usually know how to report on scientific research.
Unfortunately, the increase of pre-prints seems to have magnified this
problem.

Taking a step back, scientific progress is poorly understood in general, even
by many smart and inquisitive folks. In fact, I think no one really has a good
concise, thorough description for how science unfolds. The reality of it is
incredibly complex and messy (but nonetheless unbelievably effective).

Even something as seemingly basic as the “scientific method” as it is taught
in schools and seen in popular discussion is pretty misleading. It is not a
great model of how science is done.

Another concrete example of the confusion is the debates commonly seen about
the definition of supposedly official scientific terms such as “law”, “theory”
and “hypothesis ”.

Sean Carroll has a great episode on his Mindscape podcast that touches on this
a bit and provides a decent if not fully satisfactory answer to the question
of how science actually works. As a heads up, they spend a good chunk of time
talking about the concept of truth and some related philosophy :) I found it
interesting and useful, but I can guess not everyone will appreciate it.

[https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2020/05/04/95-l...](https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2020/05/04/95-liam-
kofi-bright-on-knowledge-truth-and-science/)

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I wonder if the news that talked about the study so much when it was first
published will spend as much time talking about the retraction.

~~~
jeffmcmahan
FWIW, that _never_ occurs.

EDIT: Although it is currently being mentioned on the front pages of NYT,
WaPo, and WSJ.

~~~
stcredzero
Aw hell, for the past several years, they're just fine with editing their
posts and hoping their error falls down the digital "memory hole."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole)

------
mturmon
Submitting this as a tweet in isolation is teeing up for a flamey exchange in
the comments here.

------
stcredzero
There's even more going on here. Take a look at the studies and note 1) the
timing and 2) the lack of zinc. We've already had statistically significant
results, where zinc is a significant factor with HCQ. Also the timing doesn't
make sense. Wait 4 days after they show up so the virus can replicate, _then_
give them a viral replication inhibitor? Huh?

Check out Dr. Martensen's videos. He's called this stuff earlier than anyone
I'm aware of:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUD_wvkNhnk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUD_wvkNhnk)

Also, compare and contrast what the news media was saying at the time. Then,
compare and contrast with this: (WHO report which also shows how safe HCQ is)

[https://www.who.int/malaria/mpac/mpac-mar2017-erg-
cardiotoxi...](https://www.who.int/malaria/mpac/mpac-mar2017-erg-
cardiotoxicity-report-session2.pdf)

~~~
ejstronge
I’ve never seen a published report on zinc and chloroquine, and this
combination seems to only appear in YouTube videos. Do you have any links to
clinical studies?

~~~
stcredzero
There's a study referenced here. The p-value for Zinc vs. No Zinc is 0.003.

[https://youtu.be/IH2UoBUcW2I?t=1289](https://youtu.be/IH2UoBUcW2I?t=1289)

The study title, and authors are here:
[https://youtu.be/IH2UoBUcW2I?t=1008](https://youtu.be/IH2UoBUcW2I?t=1008)

