The influential hydroxychloroquine study on COVID-19 has finally been retracted

Widely contested research that wasted time and put people at risk during the pandemic is finally dead. This week, the publisher of a scientific journal retracted an influential study that claimed to have shown that hydroxychloroquine could treat Covid-19, after years of criticism over the study’s design and analysis.

Elsevier issued to retreat of the study on Tuesday, citing concerns about how it was conducted and whether patients were properly recruited into it. The study sparked great interest in the possibilities of using hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19, and President Trump even supports its use. However, many experts questioned the study’s findings, and subsequent studies failed to replicate its findings.

Hydroxychloroquine, or HCQ, has long been a valuable drug, typically used to treat severe malaria infections and more often these days to treat symptoms of autoimmune disorders such as lupus. Based on laboratory studies, some scientists have also speculated that the drug could have a broad antiviral effect, which could allow it to be repurposed as a treatment for COVID-19.

The small, now-retracted study, published in International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents In March 2020, it seems to reinforce that hunch. It found that people who took HCQ had lower levels of the virus on average or cleared the infection more quickly; Those who took the antibiotic azithromycin seemed to recover faster.

These results led to increased interest in the drug. A day after the study was published, President Trump said Described Combination therapy as a ‘game changer’ for the pandemic. The US government and other organizations announced soon after that they would begin large-scale trials to test hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

It didn’t take long for other scientists to do so raises Concerns about the study, its methodology and its authors — especially senior author Didier Raoult, a physician and microbiologist — are concerns that have since been widely validated.

Elsevier staff, along with outside experts, conducted an investigation into the study, after numerous complaints from other scientists. The team identified several potential ethical lapses. It is not clear whether any of the patients participating in the study were enrolled in the study before consent was given, for example. Patients may also have been given azithromycin without proper authorization. While some authors defended their findings, three authors told Elsevier that they had concerns “regarding the presentation and interpretation of the results” and that they no longer wanted to write their names on the paper. At least ten other papers by Raoult have it It has also been retracted From Elsevier this year.

Perhaps the most damaging legacy of this study is the wild, futile witch hunt it started. As a result, millions of COVID-19 patients have been dosed with HCQ, but the vast majority of studies Failed to display It was of no use; Some studies have even found that it arouses people’s emotions Risk of death From heart problems. Despite this research, many people continue to advocate for HCQ and others Suspicious treatments for Covid-19 (Included Robert F. kennedy jr(which may soon run the Department of Health and Human Services). Importantly, this strong support for HCQ may have convinced some people to refuse appropriate care for COVID-19 infection.

Scientists were able to find other, older drugs that were actually effective in treating Covid-19, especially steroids Dexamethasone. Thanks to these medicines and innovations such as vaccines, the Covid-19 virus is now less of a threat to public health. But the anti-science stance expressed by many HCQ supporters in their defense is, unfortunately, still alive and well.