[burger]

This is not a good look for the med school: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ste...stleblower

A highly influential coronavirus antibody study was funded in part by David Neeleman, the JetBlue Airways founder and a vocal proponent of the idea that the pandemic isn’t deadly enough to justify continued lockdowns.

That’s according to a complaint from an anonymous whistleblower, filed with Stanford University last week and obtained by BuzzFeed News, about the study conducted by the famous scientist John Ioannidis and others. The complaint cites dozens of emails, including exchanges with the airline executive while the study was being conducted.

But Ioannidis and his coauthors did not disclose that the study was funded in part by Neeleman. “Concern that the authors were affected by a severe conflict of interest is unavoidable,” states the complaint, which was submitted to Stanford’s research compliance office by an anonymous whistleblower involved with the research.

And emails cited within the complaint also suggest that the study’s authors disregarded warnings raised by two Stanford professors who tried to verify the accuracy of the antibody test used. The pair of scientists ultimately refused to put their names on the study because, they told the lead researchers, they could not stand by the test results. The complaint suggests that Neeleman “potentially used financial incentives to secure cooperation from” one of these scientists, who told colleagues by email that she was “alarmed” by aspects of the antibody test’s performance.

The study authors, of course deny everything.  Which is what you do when the alternative is to all but ensure that you will be fired.

[burger]

This is not a good look for the med school: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ste...stleblower

A highly influential coronavirus antibody study was funded in part by David Neeleman, the JetBlue Airways founder and a vocal proponent of the idea that the pandemic isn’t deadly enough to justify continued lockdowns.

That’s according to a complaint from an anonymous whistleblower, filed with Stanford University last week and obtained by BuzzFeed News, about the study conducted by the famous scientist John Ioannidis and others. The complaint cites dozens of emails, including exchanges with the airline executive while the study was being conducted.

But Ioannidis and his coauthors did not disclose that the study was funded in part by Neeleman. “Concern that the authors were affected by a severe conflict of interest is unavoidable,” states the complaint, which was submitted to Stanford’s research compliance office by an anonymous whistleblower involved with the research.

And emails cited within the complaint also suggest that the study’s authors disregarded warnings raised by two Stanford professors who tried to verify the accuracy of the antibody test used. The pair of scientists ultimately refused to put their names on the study because, they told the lead researchers, they could not stand by the test results. The complaint suggests that Neeleman “potentially used financial incentives to secure cooperation from” one of these scientists, who told colleagues by email that she was “alarmed” by aspects of the antibody test’s performance.

The study authors, of course deny everything.  Which is what you do when the alternative is to all but ensure that you will be fired.

[stupac2]

Well that would sure explain a lot about this study.

[stupac2]

Well that would sure explain a lot about this study.

[BostonCard]

Failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest is problematic.   Potentially more problematic (if that is what was in those emails) is the funder directing the conduct of the study.

However, it is usually a venal, not a mortal sin, and, unfortunately very common in academia.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaonc...le/2755636
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...le/2712192
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoto...le/2709825
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoph...le/2531479


Here's a good rundown:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealt...sues/76832

Cases like José Baselga's (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/healt...ering.html) who resigned from MSK for COI disclosure failures are the exception and not the rule.

Lastly, this was a preprint article, not a peer reviewed, published journal article.  I didn't find a COI disclosure requirement for medRXiv (not that they shouldn't have disclosed their COI).

The bigger thing is that as more and better quality serology prevalence studies have come out, it is becoming clear that their prevalence study for Santa Clara probably overestimated the prevalence (and thus underestimated the CFR).

BC

[BostonCard]

Failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest is problematic.   Potentially more problematic (if that is what was in those emails) is the funder directing the conduct of the study.

However, it is usually a venal, not a mortal sin, and, unfortunately very common in academia.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaonc...le/2755636
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...le/2712192
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoto...le/2709825
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoph...le/2531479


Here's a good rundown:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealt...sues/76832

Cases like José Baselga's (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/healt...ering.html) who resigned from MSK for COI disclosure failures are the exception and not the rule.

Lastly, this was a preprint article, not a peer reviewed, published journal article.  I didn't find a COI disclosure requirement for medRXiv (not that they shouldn't have disclosed their COI).

The bigger thing is that as more and better quality serology prevalence studies have come out, it is becoming clear that their prevalence study for Santa Clara probably overestimated the prevalence (and thus underestimated the CFR).

BC

[burger]

Failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest is problematic.   Potentially more problematic (if that is what was in those emails) is the funder directing the conduct of the study.

However, it is usually a venal, not a mortal sin, and, unfortunately very common in academia.

I think there's a big difference between "forgot to mention that I'm on such-and-such board" and "the funder was in regular email contact with the scientists about the direction and results of the study and exerted influence over the study."  That's unethical regardless of whether or not the relationship is disclosed.

Also, as a non-medical scientist, I'm amazed that not disclosing conflicts of interest is considered no big deal.  I work in a field in which almost no one has a financial stake in the outcomes of their research (other than the interest in advancing careers, getting future funding, etc., but that's true in all of science).  If it turned out that people had paychecks riding on the outcome of a study and didn't disclose it, it would be a big scandal in my field.

There are plenty of examples that show that conflicts of interest, even when disclosed, can influence research outcomes.  This was the first one I pulled up: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1494677/  I know I've seen others.

[burger]

Failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest is problematic.   Potentially more problematic (if that is what was in those emails) is the funder directing the conduct of the study.

However, it is usually a venal, not a mortal sin, and, unfortunately very common in academia.

I think there's a big difference between "forgot to mention that I'm on such-and-such board" and "the funder was in regular email contact with the scientists about the direction and results of the study and exerted influence over the study."  That's unethical regardless of whether or not the relationship is disclosed.

Also, as a non-medical scientist, I'm amazed that not disclosing conflicts of interest is considered no big deal.  I work in a field in which almost no one has a financial stake in the outcomes of their research (other than the interest in advancing careers, getting future funding, etc., but that's true in all of science).  If it turned out that people had paychecks riding on the outcome of a study and didn't disclose it, it would be a big scandal in my field.

There are plenty of examples that show that conflicts of interest, even when disclosed, can influence research outcomes.  This was the first one I pulled up: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1494677/  I know I've seen others.

[BostonCard]

I agree with you, which is why I wrote, "Potentially more problematic (if that is what was in those emails) is the funder directing the conduct of the study."

Agree that conflict of interest is an issue in the biomedical research field.  And I agree that failure to disclose should be taken more seriously (and I believe that there are moves afoot to do that).  The expectation is certainly there for disclosure, and I think everyone is starting to take failure to disclose more seriously.  However, I just wanted to point out that it is not uncommon failures to disclose to go unnoticed, and even when they are noticed, often result in little more than a letter of mea culpa.

BC

[BostonCard]

I agree with you, which is why I wrote, "Potentially more problematic (if that is what was in those emails) is the funder directing the conduct of the study."

Agree that conflict of interest is an issue in the biomedical research field.  And I agree that failure to disclose should be taken more seriously (and I believe that there are moves afoot to do that).  The expectation is certainly there for disclosure, and I think everyone is starting to take failure to disclose more seriously.  However, I just wanted to point out that it is not uncommon failures to disclose to go unnoticed, and even when they are noticed, often result in little more than a letter of mea culpa.

BC

[akiddoc]

In my experience it is a big deal to those of us reading the studies and not a big deal to the journals. It is required that you list your funders but the stuff still gets published.

[akiddoc]

In my experience it is a big deal to those of us reading the studies and not a big deal to the journals. It is required that you list your funders but the stuff still gets published.

[oldalum]

Interesting graph in the NY Times showing how news of the study spread through right-wing social media in the hours after the first mention by a prominent conservative commentator. (scroll down to the bottom of the story)

[oldalum]

Interesting graph in the NY Times showing how news of the study spread through right-wing social media in the hours after the first mention by a prominent conservative commentator. (scroll down to the bottom of the story)

[OutsiderFan]

Would have been nice for Stanford to get ahead of this and announce an investigation before a whistleblower came forward. I didn't have any proof, but it sure seemed to me, after learning about its egregious shortcomings that there was reason to believe the now infamous antibody study might have been fraudulent on purpose. Just follow the money.

Stanford was also involved with a seemingly more credible antibody study of MLB teams. I'm assuming that was done with a different set of folks not attached to the now tainted researchers?

[OutsiderFan]

Would have been nice for Stanford to get ahead of this and announce an investigation before a whistleblower came forward. I didn't have any proof, but it sure seemed to me, after learning about its egregious shortcomings that there was reason to believe the now infamous antibody study might have been fraudulent on purpose. Just follow the money.

Stanford was also involved with a seemingly more credible antibody study of MLB teams. I'm assuming that was done with a different set of folks not attached to the now tainted researchers?

[Mick]

Would have been nice for Stanford to get ahead of this and announce an investigation before a whistleblower came forward. I didn't have any proof, but it sure seemed to me, after learning about its egregious shortcomings that there was reason to believe the now infamous antibody study might have been fraudulent on purpose. Just follow the money.

Stanford was also involved with a seemingly more credible antibody study of MLB teams. I'm assuming that was done with a different set of folks not attached to the now tainted researchers?

Yes, it would be nice.  Wouldn't surprise me if some inhouse counsel at Stanford tried to fix it without publicity, because negative publicity is the last thing that Stanford wants or the Stanford brand needs.

[Mick]

Would have been nice for Stanford to get ahead of this and announce an investigation before a whistleblower came forward. I didn't have any proof, but it sure seemed to me, after learning about its egregious shortcomings that there was reason to believe the now infamous antibody study might have been fraudulent on purpose. Just follow the money.

Stanford was also involved with a seemingly more credible antibody study of MLB teams. I'm assuming that was done with a different set of folks not attached to the now tainted researchers?

Yes, it would be nice.  Wouldn't surprise me if some inhouse counsel at Stanford tried to fix it without publicity, because negative publicity is the last thing that Stanford wants or the Stanford brand needs.

[oldalum]

The original and revised versions of the preprint state:

"We acknowledge many individual donors who generously supported this project with gift awards. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study, nor in the decision to prepare and submit the manuscript for publication." 

And the whistleblower apparently does not allege the latter statement is incorrect, although it leaves open the possibility that the funder(s) played a role in the preparation and review of the manuscript. The phrasing "the decision to prepare and submit" is odd; it is notable that it is not "nor in the preparation and submission of the manuscript for publication."

Even if funders in fact just write a check and play no role whatsoever in the study or the paper, funding sources that have an interest in how the results come out should be disclosed because they represent a potential source of future funding that can influence the researchers on the present study even without direct communication.

[oldalum]

The original and revised versions of the preprint state:

"We acknowledge many individual donors who generously supported this project with gift awards. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study, nor in the decision to prepare and submit the manuscript for publication." 

And the whistleblower apparently does not allege the latter statement is incorrect, although it leaves open the possibility that the funder(s) played a role in the preparation and review of the manuscript. The phrasing "the decision to prepare and submit" is odd; it is notable that it is not "nor in the preparation and submission of the manuscript for publication."

Even if funders in fact just write a check and play no role whatsoever in the study or the paper, funding sources that have an interest in how the results come out should be disclosed because they represent a potential source of future funding that can influence the researchers on the present study even without direct communication.

[Snorlax94]

What about the embarrassing fact that no one has reproduced their results? It seems no one else has come up with an ifr of around .18%.

If I use an ifr of .4% I come up with a multiplier in SCC of around 15, not 54-80.

[Snorlax94]

What about the embarrassing fact that no one has reproduced their results? It seems no one else has come up with an ifr of around .18%.

If I use an ifr of .4% I come up with a multiplier in SCC of around 15, not 54-80.

[JustAnotherFan]

This is not a good look for the med school: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ste...stleblower

A highly influential coronavirus antibody study was funded in part by David Neeleman, the JetBlue Airways founder and a vocal proponent of the idea that the pandemic isn’t deadly enough to justify continued lockdowns.

That’s according to a complaint from an anonymous whistleblower, filed with Stanford University last week and obtained by BuzzFeed News, about the study conducted by the famous scientist John Ioannidis and others. The complaint cites dozens of emails, including exchanges with the airline executive while the study was being conducted.

But Ioannidis and his coauthors did not disclose that the study was funded in part by Neeleman. “Concern that the authors were affected by a severe conflict of interest is unavoidable,” states the complaint, which was submitted to Stanford’s research compliance office by an anonymous whistleblower involved with the research.

And emails cited within the complaint also suggest that the study’s authors disregarded warnings raised by two Stanford professors who tried to verify the accuracy of the antibody test used. The pair of scientists ultimately refused to put their names on the study because, they told the lead researchers, they could not stand by the test results. The complaint suggests that Neeleman “potentially used financial incentives to secure cooperation from” one of these scientists, who told colleagues by email that she was “alarmed” by aspects of the antibody test’s performance.

The study authors, of course deny everything.  Which is what you do when the alternative is to all but ensure that you will be fired.

"famous scientist John Ioannidis"

Soon to be infamous.

This is such an embarrassment. 

[JustAnotherFan]

This is not a good look for the med school: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ste...stleblower

A highly influential coronavirus antibody study was funded in part by David Neeleman, the JetBlue Airways founder and a vocal proponent of the idea that the pandemic isn’t deadly enough to justify continued lockdowns.

That’s according to a complaint from an anonymous whistleblower, filed with Stanford University last week and obtained by BuzzFeed News, about the study conducted by the famous scientist John Ioannidis and others. The complaint cites dozens of emails, including exchanges with the airline executive while the study was being conducted.

But Ioannidis and his coauthors did not disclose that the study was funded in part by Neeleman. “Concern that the authors were affected by a severe conflict of interest is unavoidable,” states the complaint, which was submitted to Stanford’s research compliance office by an anonymous whistleblower involved with the research.

And emails cited within the complaint also suggest that the study’s authors disregarded warnings raised by two Stanford professors who tried to verify the accuracy of the antibody test used. The pair of scientists ultimately refused to put their names on the study because, they told the lead researchers, they could not stand by the test results. The complaint suggests that Neeleman “potentially used financial incentives to secure cooperation from” one of these scientists, who told colleagues by email that she was “alarmed” by aspects of the antibody test’s performance.

The study authors, of course deny everything.  Which is what you do when the alternative is to all but ensure that you will be fired.

"famous scientist John Ioannidis"

Soon to be infamous.

This is such an embarrassment. 

[oldalum]

interview  with Ioannidis about the study and its politicization; I consider his answers quite disingenuous.

[oldalum]

interview  with Ioannidis about the study and its politicization; I consider his answers quite disingenuous.