Read on Twitter
Just had a lovely week offline. Now I am here, reading an (unlabeled) op-ed in @sciam, from the same two authors who made the same argument in @undarkmag in June.
I wrote this thread then, noting important, missing context: https://twitter.com/stephaniemlee/status/1271152906935230464
Time for another, I guess!
I wrote this thread then, noting important, missing context: https://twitter.com/stephaniemlee/status/1271152906935230464
Time for another, I guess!
This piece doesn’t link to any of my stories. Here they are, for the 1000th time.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/coronavirus-antibody-test-santa-clara-los-angeles-stanford
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-study-bhattacharya-email
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-neeleman-ioannidis-whistleblower https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ioannidis-trump-white-house-coronavirus-lockdowns
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/coronavirus-antibody-test-santa-clara-los-angeles-stanford
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-study-bhattacharya-email
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-neeleman-ioannidis-whistleblower https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ioannidis-trump-white-house-coronavirus-lockdowns
I see that some COI disclosures have been added post-publication. Again.
The screenshot on the right is an update from the Undark piece, which just got longer this week. One of the authors is now being removed from Undark’s advisory board. (h/t @merz) https://twitter.com/tomzellerjr/status/1333789225016193025
The screenshot on the right is an update from the Undark piece, which just got longer this week. One of the authors is now being removed from Undark’s advisory board. (h/t @merz) https://twitter.com/tomzellerjr/status/1333789225016193025
Onto the piece itself. Did Ioannidis really claim this? In STAT, he described data from the 1918 pandemic as “the most pessimistic scenario, **which I do not espouse**.” https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/
Just want to be clear about the context that the authors left out: This story was about a whistleblower complaint filed with Stanford by someone who was involved with the research and concerned about how it was done.
The SciAm piece doesn’t link to the story or acknowledge any of these allegations/emails/interviews, so I am sharing them here, or once again, you can just read the story! https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-neeleman-ioannidis-whistleblower
As many have noted, this is a misleading summary of the statistical critiques (see next tweet). It should say false “positives,” which I understand is being corrected. It doesn’t note all the other concerns raised, e.g. recruitment https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/coronavirus-antibody-test-santa-clara-los-angeles-stanford
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-study-bhattacharya-email
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-study-bhattacharya-email
More on what critics actually said. As @statmodeling explains, the authors’ infection rate could be right OR wrong (though “that does not mean anyone thinks the true infection rate is zero"). The study just didn’t have enough data to be clear either way. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.22.20108944v3
More:
https://twitter.com/wfithian/status/1252692357788479488
https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1333509020129263618
https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1333532609775693825
Dismissing these kinds of critiques as “absurd” because they are “couched in a fair deal of math” is strange ... because … the study is based on math???
https://twitter.com/wfithian/status/1252692357788479488
https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1333509020129263618
https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1333532609775693825
Dismissing these kinds of critiques as “absurd” because they are “couched in a fair deal of math” is strange ... because … the study is based on math???
—Neeleman isn’t JetBlue’s CEO (he's the founder).
—He's confirmed giving the study $5k and that the authors, w/whom he was communicating, knew he was a donor
—Stanford has repeatedly declined to give me the investigation’s findings. So who is the authors' source? I have a guess.
—He's confirmed giving the study $5k and that the authors, w/whom he was communicating, knew he was a donor
—Stanford has repeatedly declined to give me the investigation’s findings. So who is the authors' source? I have a guess.
OK, going to wrap this up. Ideally I’d like to spend what’s left of the year thinking about what I’m going to write next, instead of litigating stories I wrote 6+ months ago. Thanks, as always, for reading!
Update: The op-ed about John Ioannidis has now been extensively updated and corrected. Thank you @sciam for listening to our feedback.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ioannidis-affair-a-tale-of-major-scientific-overreaction/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ioannidis-affair-a-tale-of-major-scientific-overreaction/
