HCQ doesn't work for Covid, but this is a fundamentally political retraction that won't accomplish anything.<p>If I had to line up Covid-related papers that should be retracted on the grounds that the science was shoddy this paper would certainly be on the list, but it would be on a list with other, absolutely horrible, irresponsible stuff related to (for example) masks [1], that <i>the same people who railed against this paper continue to believe</i>, almost as religion.<p>In the Covid debates "both sides" have their shibboleths that are based on atrocious science, so let's not get too sanctimonious about retraction of a single paper.<p>[1] Since people are downvoting because I said the word "masks", here is just one high-profile example: <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2211029" rel="nofollow">https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2211029</a><p>This paper was found, in subsequent analysis, to have cherry-picked their data sets to achieve a pre-determined outcome:<p><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.11974" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.11974</a><p>If you find yourself reacting emotionally to this particular topic (or any other related to Covid), you should take a step back and consider that you might be an example of what I'm talking about.