<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">On Aug 6, 2020, at 12:50 AM, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:<br><div dir="ltr"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span>Quoting Elise Scher (elise.scher01@gmail.com):</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>So Ruben, why don't you believe it?</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>I'm curious, too. This was a peer-reviewed study in _The Lancet_, which</span><br><span>(for any who really don't know) has been one of the most respected</span><br><span>medical journals in the world, for just short of 200 years.</span><br><span></span><br><span>That doesn't make them infallible: In 1998, it published a paper by</span><br><span>Andrew Wakefield and 11 co-authors suggesting the MMR vaccine is</span><br><span>implicated in children's autism and colitis. The paper was later proven</span><br><span>to be fraudulent, although (predictably) it's still to this day cited by</span><br><span>antivaxers as if it were credible.</span><br></div></blockquote><br><div>_The Lancet_ and others were caught up in outright data fraud trying to sell snake oil in the form of chloroquine / hydroxychloroquine (which, to be clear, do work for some autoimmune diseases and malaria, and some side effects in some viruses) earlier this year:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/mysterious-company-s-coronavirus-papers-top-medical-journals-may-be-unraveling">https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/mysterious-company-s-coronavirus-papers-top-medical-journals-may-be-unraveling</a></div><div><br></div><div>The peer review process is not designed to catch data fraud that deep.</div><div><br></div><div>Deirdre</div></body></html>