[2006alum]

On May 16, 2020, The Lancet ran an editorial highly critical of Donald Trump.  Suppose this study had contained findings that were favorable toward this drug, not unfavorable.  Do you believe it would have been ushered through to print without substantially more review that, presumably, would have avoided such a problem?  I certainly do.  But, given its unfavorable findings, it was [to repeat myself from another thread] obviously "too good to check."

I know the mantra oft repeated is that one side should be believed because it is relying on "science", while the other side should be disregarded [or, worse, chastised] for relying only on "politics."  However, "scientists" are people, just like politicians, and people -- scientists, politicians, and all -- have their own viewpoints, biases, and prejudices.  In fact, scientists are quite often quite political.  See, e.g., The Lancet [May 16, 2020].

Science is only reliably "self-correcting" if scientists make it so.  That process is jeopardized, though, when "science" is used by one side not to investigate and reveal facts, irrespective of the "political" side that might benefit from those facts, but as a means to silence an opposing political view.

As for the process working, maybe so, but I think the reporting of the study's dubious negative -- read: anti-Trump -- conclusions are likely to far outstrip the news of their retraction.  So, in that sense, it [the article, not so much the process] probably worked from The Lancet's perspective.

This entire issue would be moot if we didn't have a snake oil salesman for a President who hawks anything that makes him seem large and in charge and insinuates himself into literally every issue. I'm sorry, but the "science" only got politicized because he has something to say about literally every issue, which inherently makes it political, including hydroxychloroquine. As someone said today, he's the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. 

I also blame the media for hyping each of these preliminary studies so much - the science doesn't even have time to work before the court of public opinion has already rendered a verdict.

And, incidentally, that's what galls me so much about John Ioannidis - he is actively promoting his preliminary findings to alter public policy choices where lives are on the line. The reason it's known as the "Stanford Study" is because he and his co-authors have been leveraging their Stanford credentials to get anyone who will pay attention to listen. 

Maybe one day soon we'll have leadership that has the instinct to deescalate rather than escalate.

[2006alum]

On May 16, 2020, The Lancet ran an editorial highly critical of Donald Trump.  Suppose this study had contained findings that were favorable toward this drug, not unfavorable.  Do you believe it would have been ushered through to print without substantially more review that, presumably, would have avoided such a problem?  I certainly do.  But, given its unfavorable findings, it was [to repeat myself from another thread] obviously "too good to check."

I know the mantra oft repeated is that one side should be believed because it is relying on "science", while the other side should be disregarded [or, worse, chastised] for relying only on "politics."  However, "scientists" are people, just like politicians, and people -- scientists, politicians, and all -- have their own viewpoints, biases, and prejudices.  In fact, scientists are quite often quite political.  See, e.g., The Lancet [May 16, 2020].

Science is only reliably "self-correcting" if scientists make it so.  That process is jeopardized, though, when "science" is used by one side not to investigate and reveal facts, irrespective of the "political" side that might benefit from those facts, but as a means to silence an opposing political view.

As for the process working, maybe so, but I think the reporting of the study's dubious negative -- read: anti-Trump -- conclusions are likely to far outstrip the news of their retraction.  So, in that sense, it [the article, not so much the process] probably worked from The Lancet's perspective.

This entire issue would be moot if we didn't have a snake oil salesman for a President who hawks anything that makes him seem large and in charge and insinuates himself into literally every issue. I'm sorry, but the "science" only got politicized because he has something to say about literally every issue, which inherently makes it political, including hydroxychloroquine. As someone said today, he's the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. 

I also blame the media for hyping each of these preliminary studies so much - the science doesn't even have time to work before the court of public opinion has already rendered a verdict.

And, incidentally, that's what galls me so much about John Ioannidis - he is actively promoting his preliminary findings to alter public policy choices where lives are on the line. The reason it's known as the "Stanford Study" is because he and his co-authors have been leveraging their Stanford credentials to get anyone who will pay attention to listen. 

Maybe one day soon we'll have leadership that has the instinct to deescalate rather than escalate.