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and induction of coronavirus in skin cells,” published in Biological Regulators & Homeostatic Agents on July 16, 2020, withdrawn on July 24, 2020.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. 

# # #

Genetically-altered pigs are now on the menu

Here’s the latest on genetically modified pork, from NextGov:

The United States Food and Drug Administration has authorized gene-edited pigs entrance into the food chain for human consumption—as German-style sausages.

Gene-editing can make changes in an organism’s DNA that could occur in nature or through selective breeding but would take much longer without a tool like CRISPR.

The FDA authorization is investigational, and limited to these particular pigs, but shows that gene-editing livestock to quickly produce desirable traits for improved food production is a viable strategy for helping feed the planet’s growing population.

Uh huh.  Here’s the final quote:

“There’s a trust that comes with university-based research,” he says. “We just want to make sure the research is valid, and the animals we produce are healthy.”

The “trust that comes with university-based research”?  With all the corruption in the peer-reviewed studies (RetractionWatch does nothing all day but track the retractions in peer-reviewed research), well, that trust would seem to be long gone.  Read the full report here. 

# # #