Another study bites the dust
We’ve come full circle on hydroxychloroquine: the infamous paper that set of the Covid-19 treatment “suppression” has been retracted.
Will this change the minds of those who swore the immunosuppressive drug and anti-parasite was being secretly suppressed by the deep state? I won’t hold my breath, but the retraction was the right move.
The gist
A controversial 2020 paper promoting hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment has been retracted due to ethical concerns and methodological problems.
The original study, published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents (IJAA), claimed that hydroxychloroquine reduced virus levels in COVID-19 patients, especially when combined with azithromycin.
Key issues with the study
Small sample size of only 36 patients
Unusually short peer-review time of just 4 days
Six treated patients were dropped from the study, potentially skewing results
Different cutoffs for classifying positive PCR tests in treatment and control groups
Questions about proper ethical approval and informed consent
Editorial conflict of interest: the journal's editor-in-chief was also an author
Consequences and criticisms
The paper, led by Philippe Gautret and senior author Didier Raoult, sparked widespread enthusiasm for hydroxychloroquine, including support from then-President Donald Trump. More rigorous trials later showed that hydroxychloroquine did not benefit COVID-19 patients.
Once this study was published, however, Covid contrarians used it as proof that government suppression was keeping an inexpensive treatment was being “kept” from people. Raoult was treated like a contrarian hero.
Yet to date, 32 papers from the Hospital Institute of Marseille Mediterranean Infection (IHU) have been retracted, with 28 co-authored by Raoult. The French Society of Pharmacology and Therapeutics called the study the "cornerstone" of a scandal that led to millions unnecessarily taking hydroxychloroquine, endangering patients who experienced side effects.
Retraction Details
The retraction was initiated by Elsevier and the International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy due to ethical issues and concerns raised by three of the authors themselves. An investigation could not confirm whether ethical approval was obtained or if patients consented to experimental treatment with azithromycin.
Seed oil confusion
If you’ve been on social media this week you might have learned that seed oils are causing colorectal cancer in young people. As immunologist and microbiologist, Dr Andrea Love, points out, this wellness propaganda is being spread by influencers like chiropractor Will Cole, Leigh Connealy, and the Food Babe.
The study in question never mentions seed oils once.
The gist
A recent study published in Gut (British Medical Journal) did not examine dietary factors or seed oil consumption in relation to colorectal cancer. The confusion occurred because untrained influencers saw the word “lipids,” extrapolated from the data to draw faulty conclusions, and continued demonizing seed oils.
The actual study
The research analyzed 40 colorectal cancer biopsies and matched non-cancer samples, focusing on molecular analyses of lipids and gene expression.
It was an observational, hypothesis-generating study that did not establish any causal relationships.
Love breaks down why influencers wrongly target seed oils:
They misunderstand the role of arachidonic acid (AA) in the body
AA is essential for life and found in cell membranes
Linoleic acid, found in seed oils, is only minimally converted to AA (about 0.2%)
About colorectal cancer
As Love notes, established risk factors for colorectal cancer include low-fiber diets, high animal fat consumption, alcohol use, smoking, and sedentary lifestyle. She also points out that for this study, patient samples were mostly from people over age 50—and 80% of all cancers occur in people in this age group.
Colorectal cancer rates are highest in adults over 65
There's been a modest 1-2% annual increase in rates among adults under 50
The age-adjusted probability of someone under 50 being diagnosed is 0.3%
Bottom line
If you see an influencer (or sadly, publications like Scientific American, which ran with the idea that seed oils are behind this type of cancer), take a step back and locate the study in question.
Science might be complex but the motives of wellness influencers are usually not.
