[BostonCard]

It goes both ways.  Trump supporters can’t seem to fathom that his opponents might be interested in the truth no matter whether it helps or hurts Trump.  Keep in mind that 2006alum was the first to report today’s job numbers even though they are unambiguously good for Trump.  I pointed out weaknesses in the hydroxychloroquine paper before the provenance of its data came under question, and I was the one who posted questions about the paper, the statement of concern, and then the retraction.  I actually would love for Trump to be proved right about hydroxychloroquine, because that would mean that doctors would have a cheap and relatively safe (QT issues aside) treatment for COVID-19.  I have defended the motives and methods of Ioannidis and Bhattarcharya, (and critiqued the conclusions when merited). I firmly believe you have to follow the science wherever it leads. And I have no doubt that the editors of the Lancet feel the same way, just as I don’t think the editors of JAMA are biased because they published the serology paper.  I think it is pretty ridiculous to think that the editors would sacrifice scientific integrity because... Trump.  The world does not revolve around him, and for those of us working to defeat COVID-19, the imperative is the thousands of people dying from it, full stop.  If hydroxychloroquine really were increasing the risk of death in patients with COVID-19, that’s an important finding.  It’s unfortunate that some studies were put on hold due to the results of the paper, doubly so because it might have relied on fraudulent data, but the opposite scenario (delay in publication leading to delay in finding a harmful effect of hydroxychloroquine would have been just as bad). Bottom line, especially in these fast moving and uncertain times, we cant let let politics bias our understanding of the facts. We just have to understand that in the rush to publish and disseminate knowledge about COVID-19 as quickly as possible, inevitably we will jump the gun on some things.  That we do so is not a problem, so long as we are able to self-correct when flaws are uncovered.

BC

[BostonCard]

It goes both ways.  Trump supporters can’t seem to fathom that his opponents might be interested in the truth no matter whether it helps or hurts Trump.  Keep in mind that 2006alum was the first to report today’s job numbers even though they are unambiguously good for Trump.  I pointed out weaknesses in the hydroxychloroquine paper before the provenance of its data came under question, and I was the one who posted questions about the paper, the statement of concern, and then the retraction.  I actually would love for Trump to be proved right about hydroxychloroquine, because that would mean that doctors would have a cheap and relatively safe (QT issues aside) treatment for COVID-19.  I have defended the motives and methods of Ioannidis and Bhattarcharya, (and critiqued the conclusions when merited). I firmly believe you have to follow the science wherever it leads. And I have no doubt that the editors of the Lancet feel the same way, just as I don’t think the editors of JAMA are biased because they published the serology paper.  I think it is pretty ridiculous to think that the editors would sacrifice scientific integrity because... Trump.  The world does not revolve around him, and for those of us working to defeat COVID-19, the imperative is the thousands of people dying from it, full stop.  If hydroxychloroquine really were increasing the risk of death in patients with COVID-19, that’s an important finding.  It’s unfortunate that some studies were put on hold due to the results of the paper, doubly so because it might have relied on fraudulent data, but the opposite scenario (delay in publication leading to delay in finding a harmful effect of hydroxychloroquine would have been just as bad). Bottom line, especially in these fast moving and uncertain times, we cant let let politics bias our understanding of the facts. We just have to understand that in the rush to publish and disseminate knowledge about COVID-19 as quickly as possible, inevitably we will jump the gun on some things.  That we do so is not a problem, so long as we are able to self-correct when flaws are uncovered.

BC