COVID studies: The Retractions

 

Retraction Watch monitors retractions of peer-reviewed articles/research that don’t hold up under scrutiny. It’s utterly damning to see the sheer number of peer-reviewed reports -- on COVID -- retracted – always after the damage is done: 

We’ve been tracking retractions of papers about COVID-19 as part of our database. Here’s a running list:

Retracted

“5G Technology and induction of coronavirus in skin cells,” published in Biological Regulators & Homeostatic Agents on July 16, 2020, withdrawn on July 24, 2020. Our coverage here.

“A Case Series of Stent Thrombosis During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” published on May 27, 2020 in JACC: Case Reports; retraction date is unknown.  Retracted as a duplicate publication by journal error.

“A Comparison of Early Rehabilitation in the Intensive Care Units of Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis,” published November 10, 2022 in Cureus; retracted on April 4, 2023.

“A data-mining based analysis of traditional Chinese medicine in diagnosing and treating COVID-19,” published on June 24, 2021 in The Anatomical Record; unknown when retracted.

“A deep learning model and machine learning methods for the classification of potential coronavirus treatments on a single human cell,” published on October 17, 2020 in the Journal of Nanoparticle Research; retracted on August 16, 2021.

“A Discourse Analysis of Quotidian Expressions of Nationalism during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Chinese Cyberspace,” published on September 8, 2020; retracted on April 12, 2022.

“A mechanistic analysis placental intravascular thrombus formation in COVID-19 patients,” published on April 25, 2020 in Annals of Diagnostic Pathology.  Retracted on June 22, 2020 as a duplicate publication by journal error.

“A meta-analysis of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) antibody treatment for COVID-19 patients,” published on August 20, 2021 in Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease; retracted on November 21, 2021. See our coverage here.

“A Model Based Analysis for COVID-19 Pandemic in India: Implications for Health Systems and Policy for Low- and Middle-Income Countries,” preprint possted on June 12, 2020 in medRxiv; retracted on August 18, 2020.

“A psychosocial exploration of body dissatisfaction: A narrative review With a focus on India during COVID-19,” published on July 29, 2021 in Frontiers in Global Women’s Health; retracted on January 19, 2023. 

 . . .

The rest of the list is here.  (Links via the original article)

RELATED:   Ben Bartee at PJ Media: “Peer-Reviewed Study: 'The Higher the Number of Vaccines Previously Received, the Higher the Risk of Contracting COVID-19' “

And American Greatness has more: click here. 

# # #

Natural Immunity vs “vaccines”

 

Bonchie at RedState reports on “Landmark Study Vindicates Everyone Who Touted Natural Immunity to COVID-19” complete with graphs, tweets, and commentary.  The study was just published in The Lancet, which has a checkered reputation.  Nevertheless, here’s part of Bonchie’s report:

We are going to need a new industry that simply spends its time fact-checking the so-called “fact-checkers.” That’s the story after a new landmark study published in The Lancet offered vindication to everyone who touted natural immunity to COVID-19 as an alternative to vaccination.

For years, the powers that be, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, the White House, and the press, dismissed the idea of taking natural immunity into account when debating vaccine mandates and vaccine passports.

. . .

The elites were wrong, and they destroyed countless lives in the process. Worse, they wanted to keep how wrong they were a secret. . . .

How many people lost their jobs over that decision? How many people missed time with family members they’ll never get back because those family members died alone? How many people were booted out of the military for failing to get a vaccine they didn’t need? The number of horrible outcomes brought on by Biden, Fauci, and others refusing to acknowledge natural immunity is too long to list. The harm was immeasurable.

Read the full report here (the mainstream media isn't going to do a deep dive on this one).

# # #

 

A legal brief on ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine

 

American Thinker published a report on Nebraska’s Attorney General Doug Peterson’s “devastating critique of the suppression of effective COVID therapies.”  If you’ve been on the fence on hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and ivermectin as effective treatments of COVID-19, this should put your concerns to rest. Jarrad Winter sets the stage:

Legal opinions usually aren't terribly fun to read, but if you've been an ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine advocate for use against Wuhan Plague, this one definitely will bring you much joy.

It's a rather lengthy and full spectrum opinion issued by Doug Peterson, Nebraska's Attorney General, in response to a query from the state's Department of Health and Human Services as to whether physicians can be persecuted and tormented for prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine to patients sick with the China Flu. What the AG's response amounts to is a full and complete takedown of the conspiracy to suppress cheap and effective early Covid-19 treatments.

All the players -- FDA, CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, the media, all of them -- get a glorious and swift kick in the rear end. Portions of it even made me laugh out loud. As far as legal documents go, it's definitely easy reading and understandable to everyone. It seems clear that the AG's office went to some trouble to layout the whole saga in a way the masses can understand without translation by legal scholars.

What follows are some of the most relevant parts (at least in my sometimes-humble opinion), but it really is in everyone's best interest to personally read the opinion in full. People must individually understand what's actually happening for themselves. This is what will enable We The People to course correct and divert from the ruinous path set for us by the overlords.

. . .

Read the article here; it includes chapter-and-verse on medical trials, and the agendas of "all the players."  Mr. Winter also links to the AG’s report itself.

# # #