Japanese cancer study retracted
From an article published in Doctor's Collective (Artsen Collectief)
July 5, 2024
This is a direct translation of the above article into English by Deepl. For the exact translation, please see the Dutch original.
The study by a Japanese research group that reported that in Japan in 2021 and 2022 mortality from certain types of cancer had increased compared to the multi-year downward trend (1) has been retracted by the editors of the scientific journal Cureus (2).
An earlier so-called "Expression of Concern" (in scientific publishing, such an "expression of concern" is a notification by an editor against a particular publication, warning that it may contain errors or be otherwise unreliable, ed.) reported that:
"The Editors-in-Chief have been made aware of several concerns regarding the scientific credibility of this article.": "The Editors-in-Chief have been made aware of several concerns regarding the scientific credibility of this article."
The main inspiration for this retraction appears to have been an inaccurate fact-check by the Reuters news agency. This factcheck is incorrect because it checked facts that are not described at all in the publication [ https://note.com/kochidoctors459/n/nbeb8fc5c36cc ] (3). This fact checker failed to disclose (apparent) conflicts of interest (4).
The sole reason for this retraction is now described as:
"Upon post-publication review, it has been determined that the correlation between mortality rates and vaccination status cannot be proven with the data presented in this article. As this invalidates the conclusions of the article, the decision has been made to retract."
This reason for retraction is nonsensical for two reasons. First, the publication did not claim this evidence, and second, we have known since Karl Popper that natural theories can never be "proven," only "disproved." By this argument, all correlational or experimental publications in Cureus should be retracted.
Nor do the editors of Cureus make available a re-review report on which to base their decision. The authors, therefore, disagreed with this retraction and wrote an extensive "rebuttal" (rebuttal, a form of evidence offered to contradict or nullify other evidence presented by an opposing party, ed) https://note.com/kochidoctors459/n/nbeb8fc5c36cc (3). The opinion of the original reviewers who previously accepted the article would be a welcome addition to this re-review by the authors.
A full description of the process of publication and retraction could in itself become a valuable and interesting academic study, which could still have a "happy ending" should the retraction be undone.
A Japanese version of this publication in the Japanese medical journal Medical Journal Rinsho Hyoka (Clinical Evaluation) appeared on July 1, 2024, and will add the above evaluation to the article (4).
References
Gibo M, Kojima S, Fujisawa A, et al. (April 08, 2024) Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan. Cureus 16(4): e57860. doi:10.7759/cureus.57860.
Gibo M, Kojima S, Fujisawa A, et al. (June 26, 2024) Retraction: Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan. Cureus 16(6): r143. doi:10.7759/cureus.r143.
Gibo M, Kojima S, Fujisawa A, et al. Response to notice of intent to retract_doi_10.7759cureus.57860 https://note.com/kochidoctors459/n/nbeb8fc5c36cc
Kampf, G. (2022). Fact checkers should declare conflicts of interest. BMJ 2022;376 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o399 (Published February 21, 2022) Cite this as: BMJ 2022;376:o399
Clin Eval 52（1）2024.
Disclaimer: The Physicians Collective is not responsible for the content on referenced external pages. Sharing a page does not mean that the Doctors Collective shares all views. The Doctors Collective supports the gathering and sharing of (medical) information without censorship to encourage open conversation / scientific discussion.
この記事が気に入ったらサポートをしてみませんか？