6 ms·

This appears to be a totally unrelated set of authors attempting to force a journal to retract someone else’s paper. They literally have a dedicated website to

This appears to be a totally unrelated set of authors attempting to force a journal to retract someone else’s paper. They literally have a dedicated website to promote this retraction and if you look up the authors, some of them headline their Twitter with it. The first author just today posted on Twitter that mRNA vaccines can alter your DNA. The intent of the retraction seems to be to suggest that the epidemic is overblown, to which I would respond by pointing to the the two million dead people, and the excellent correlation of positive test results with new dead people.

briandear 6y ago
Is the retracted paper correct? That’s the only question that matters. And perhaps those scientists have developed their views by actually looking at the science? Is that possible? Don’t shoot the messenger.
- morsch 6y ago
  There is no retracted paper. Like the GP correctly points out, this is a website designed to pressure another group to retract their paper. The authors of said paper have not retracted it, although there were minor addendums (none of them in response to the website, I hasten to add). The paper in question -- Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR[1][2] --, was the first paper (as far as I know, one of the first, certainly) outlining a protocol for a PCR test protocol for Sars-CoV-2, back in January 2020. In other words, these were among the first people who documented a way to detect whether a sample represented Sars-CoV-2. The authors have previously published about other coronaviruses like Sars-CoV-1 and MERS, e.g. [3] appears at first glance to be a well received paper. Here's [4] their paper on the detection of Sars-CoV-1 (or, back then, just Sars-CoV) via PCR. [1] https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045 https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=14452026284756058061&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1445202628475605806... [3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065352718300010 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S006535271... [4] https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/ese.17.39.20285-en/ https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/ese.17.39.2...

briandear 6y ago

Is the retracted paper correct? That’s the only question that matters. And perhaps those scientists have developed their views by actually looking at the science? Is that possible? Don’t shoot the messenger.

morsch 6y ago
There is no retracted paper. Like the GP correctly points out, this is a website designed to pressure another group to retract their paper. The authors of said paper have not retracted it, although there were minor addendums (none of them in response to the website, I hasten to add). The paper in question -- Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR[1][2] --, was the first paper (as far as I know, one of the first, certainly) outlining a protocol for a PCR test protocol for Sars-CoV-2, back in January 2020. In other words, these were among the first people who documented a way to detect whether a sample represented Sars-CoV-2. The authors have previously published about other coronaviruses like Sars-CoV-1 and MERS, e.g. [3] appears at first glance to be a well received paper. Here's [4] their paper on the detection of Sars-CoV-1 (or, back then, just Sars-CoV) via PCR. [1] https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045 https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=14452026284756058061&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1445202628475605806... [3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065352718300010 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S006535271... [4] https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/ese.17.39.20285-en/ https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/ese.17.39.2...