Victims to quick fixes

Imlisanen Jamir
 

The scientific community is under even more pressure in this panic driven COVID-19 world. What these times have also shown is how the scientific process is not something immune to the influence of power, privilege, finance and politics.


Several authors of a study that raised safety concerns about malaria drugs for COVID-19 patients have retracted the report, suggesting independent reviewers could not vouch for the accuracy of the data that's been widely questioned by other scientists. 


The study was published in The Lancet, perhaps the most influential medical journal in the world, two weeks ago.
Today however, that study stands retracted.


The study initially prompted policy changes regarding hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in several countries, especially after the World Health Organisation (WHO) advocated a temporary stoppage to the use of these drugs for COVID-19.


Although the Lancet report was not a rigorous test, the observational study had huge impact because of its size, analyzing data from more than 96,000 hospitalized patients in 671 hospitals across six continents during the period between late December and mid-April. 


The independent scientific community however found problems with the methodology of the study and, more importantly, the dataset. The Lancet study relied on a database from a US company, Surgisphere.


Several scientists and independent researchers found that there were discrepancies in terms of mortality estimates, no mechanisms to tally patient records and the hospitals they were sourced from.  Moreover, when the data source methodology was put under the scanner, Surgisphere, citing client confidentiality, said it was unable to share its data sources for independent assessment. This put even more doubt into the study, ultimately leading to its retraction.


Shortly after The Lancet retracted its study, the New England Journal of Medicine also retracted a paper based on the same company's database on blood pressure drugs. That study suggested that widely used blood pressure medicines were safe for coronavirus patients, a conclusion some other studies and heart doctor groups also have reached. 


In hindsight it seems obvious that a disinterested analysis would have raised eyebrows regarding data sourcing. The long drawn out peer review process has always been held as the top crucible for scrutiny of scientific research.


But these panic driven times are filled with governments, policy makers, private players and the public desperately searching for quick fix solutions. Every day we are bombarded with numerous studies on the ways to treat or prevent COVID-19.


And it is too easy to grasp at things which provide hope. without following the processes of enquiry and research which we have always valued.   


Comments can be sent to imlisanenjamir@gmail.com



Support The Morung Express.
Your Contributions Matter
Click Here