The Ioannidis Affair

[Moonbeam]

I saw this piece on Google news:

Google News

Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.

news.google.com

And decided to check out who this Ioannidis guy is and came upon this:

The Ioannidis Affair: A Tale of Major Scientific Overreaction

www.scientificamerican.com

These seem like rather interesting opposite views both of which can’t be right.

What do you think, dangerous right wing nutcase scientist who can’t admit to being wrong or expert going by the data available at the time?

 

[Gardener]

The views of Jay Bhattacharya and John Ioannidis are not the consensus views of the scientific community.

There is no equivalence.

 

[dank69]

Apparently this is the chosen thread so I'll put this here as well.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published on November 30, 2020 with a number of errors and misleading claims. First, it should have been labeled “Opinion,” but was not. Second, the authors’ bylines were omitted. Third, the authors failed to note that they have collaborated in the past with both John Ioannidis and Vinay Prasad, who are discussed in this essay, and also in this accompanying story. This, we now understand, was also the case with a similar opinion piece by the same authors in Undark magazine in June. Fourth, the authors did not disclose that there were other problematic issues raised about the design of a study co-authored by John Ioannidis, most notably how the study authors recruited study participants and how independent faculty at Stanford said that they were unable to verify the accuracy of their test.

Other specific errors or omissions are noted with asterisks in the text below. Scientific American sincerely regrets all of these errors.

Fucking liberal editor putting his ego defense on full display.

...

These seem like rather interesting opposite views both of which can’t be right.

What do you think, dangerous right wing nutcase scientist who can’t admit to being wrong or expert going by the data available at the time?

Haha Scientific American literally did the work for you.

 

[Commodus]

Good science adapts to changing findings, but also uses the findings at hand to make decisions... and as that Scientific American story update suggests, make sure that any conclusions come from verifiable, ethically collected data.

 

[brycejones]

Is this thread supposed to be some kind of defense for the op’s ivermectin thread?

 

[Amused]

The views of Jay Bhattacharya and John Ioannidis are not the consensus views of the scientific community.

There is no equivalence.

Not only that, but they have not corrected their now more than proven wrong positions.

We have 6.1 million dead world wide. Over 1 million dead in the US.

A great many of those dead are BECAUSE of these people who acted as the Jude Law character in contagion and misled people.