[pille]

I’m not sure what you mean by “politics” here, so I’d rather be explicit and say what it looks like to me.

The tobacco industry has a rich history of trying to manipulate public opinion in their favor, and this article and authors’ undisclosed conflict of interest fits that pattern well: a study shows cigarettes are actually good for you in some way, and might even save you from the current pandemic; and then whoops, authors were getting paid by the tobacco industry, and then whoops again, they didn’t mention it when submitting for publication.

If the study was retracted even though the CoPE guidelines don’t require a retraction, it implies to me that this case was more egregious than just some protocol mixup or forgetfulness. The most generous reading is that the retraction was made out of an abundance of caution and concern for the journal’s reputation. I suppose that’s possible, but I don’t see any further evidence in favor of exonerating the article, especially knowing the industry’s history.

[selectodude]

>I’m not sure what you mean by “politics” here, so I’d rather be explicit and say what it looks like to me.

I mean that they explicitly said they retracted the study (in the journal, the authors haven't retracted anything) because they refuse to take any research from anybody who has ever accepted money from tobacco companies regardless of the rigor of the data or research. Non-academic reasons.

I understand their stance because, as you said, the tobacco companies have a long sordid history of research and it's a journal of lung health with a strong "anti-smoking" bent, but calling the study "retracted" implies that it was somehow false or disproven when it has not been.

[pille]

> the authors haven't retracted anything

Why would you trust the authors, though? They really should know better. To me, the omission is either the product of general incompetence (they forgot?), or intent to deceive. Both of those seem pretty disqualifying.