3 ms·
> "can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources." It's a little understatement when the accusations are they made up the data.
by hartator 6y ago
> "can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources."
It's a little understatement when the accusations are they made up the data.
- groby_b 6y agoYou're conflating many "they" here. The retraction is by the study authors. The data is from a company that's entirely different, and that company claims their data is "proprietary" and they can't share it. There's strong suspicion that that proprietary data is in fact made up, but the study authors cannot prove it. And you really don't want to retract a study by making unproven allegations. "We can't vouch for the veracity" is all they can truthfully say. For the full statement: "“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements. As such, our reviewers were not able to conduct an independent and private peer review and therefore notified us of their withdrawal from the peer-review process.”[1] The authors tried for an independent audit. Surgisphere failed to cooperate. Given the history of its principal, not a surprise. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/covid-19-lancet-retracts-paper-that-halted-hydroxychloroquine-trials https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/covid-19-lance...
- himinlomax 6y agoThe CEO of said company is one of the authors. In any case, even if he wasn't, the other three dunces should never have trusted such dubious data.