Posted on 05/29/2020 4:35:13 AM PDT by brookwood
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.
The study — released as a non-peer-reviewed paper, or preprint, on April 17 — made headlines around the world with a dramatic finding: Based on antibodies in thousands of Silicon Valley residents’ blood samples, the number of coronavirus infections was up to 85 times higher than believed. This true infection count was so high that it would drive down the virus’s local fatality rate to 0.12%–0.2% — far closer to the known death rate for the flu.
Almost immediately, the study became a flashpoint in the increasingly politicized debate over whether and how to reopen the economy. Although many scientists assailed its methods, leading the authors to post a revision nearly two weeks later, it was trumpeted by conservative media to support a growing theory: that fears of the coronavirus are overblown. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-neeleman-ioannidis-whistleblower?bfsource=relatedmanual
“Most of the population has minimal risk, in the range of dying while you’re driving from home to work and back,” Ioannidis said on the Fox News show Life, Liberty & Levin, a few days after the study’s release.
But Ioannidis and his coauthors did not disclose that the study was funded in part by Neeleman.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-neeleman-ioannidis-whistleblower?bfsource=relatedmanual
(Excerpt) Read more at buzzfeednews.com ...
So when do we get that dosage?
By the way the mortality of Covid-19 nationwide is less than half of the Spanish flu in 1918-1920. With new infections falling, Covid-19 had better get busy to reach that rate.
Exactly-
Science and ethics are used to prove to ourselves what we want to believe vs. telling us what we should believe.
This is the new scientific method: “I like global warming because it fits nicely into my paradigm. Let’s prove global warming is real.”
30 years later and there is no global warming: “climate change denier!!!” Objective science by professional international institutions, the government and world renown scientists.
I wonder, according to this writer, who on this planet doesn’t have an agenda and has no bias (people and institutions) and is thereby objective enough to write on this subject? Obvious isn’t it, only those that agree with him.
No city in the US comes close to packing-in people the way NYC does, between its buses, subways, trains, huge train stations, and even huge numbers of taxis...and so you get the huge doses from infected people.
“You see unlike FearBros, when I make a mistake I admit it.”
I have yet to see any of the FluBros admit to being wrong when we had 50 deaths and they were comparing it the 30,000 or so from Seasonal Influenza, and asking what’s the big deal?
I guess they moved on from that, when it became non-operative.
I’m not ignoring what you are saying but a lot of good is being undone by so called “anonymous” whistle blowers in this nation. Put up a factual counterstudy that either confirms or denies this study and the science will be vindicated. When I see a cloud of accusations surrounding a study but no other study that can reproduce or not reproduce the aforementioned study...then that is not science.
The funding sources and even the reasons for pursuing the study should not matter as long as the science is sound.
“By the way the mortality of Covid-19 nationwide is less than half of the Spanish flu in 1918-1920. With new infections falling, Covid-19 had better get busy to reach that rate.”
We’re doing fine, so don’t worry, we’ll get there - especially with the FluBros taking over (at least where I live in Texas). Remember, Spanish Flu ran for 2 or 3 years!
1957 and 1968 were also years of seasonal flu. Will the FearBros admit that the flu is not just a fever and some squirts?
Factcheck False!
“We’re doing fine, so don’t worry, we’ll get there - especially with the FluBros taking over (at least where I live in Texas). Remember, Spanish Flu ran for 2 or 3 years!”
I’ll remember your post and revisit it when this is all over.
“Factcheck False!”
LOL.
“No city in the US comes close to packing-in people the way NYC does, between its buses, subways, trains, huge train stations, and even huge numbers of taxis...and so you get the huge doses from infected people.“
So now you’ve unwittingly proven that the draconian shutdowns elsewhere were unnecessary based on skewed numbers from captive areas such as NY City with its density and infection spreading public transit system, and deliberately targeted nursing homes in the rest of the state. Natural conditions on the ground, self imposed distancing, and common sense measures like limiting access to the aged would have sufficed.
That’s a fair point. But even what you say isn’t what the FluBros are saying - which is that it’s “Just the Flu, Bro”, hence their name. You’re saying that we cannot simply ignore Coronavirus, as we always did with the Flu. It’s just the degree of response.
I’ve never said it can be ignored. I’m not aware that any so-called FluBro here has either. On the contrary, Covid-19 is a serious problem made worse by intentional obfuscation and inaction by the CCP. It is not, however, the Black Death or even the Spanish Flu. Serious influenza outbreaks have been just as bad many times in the past but have not triggered the same response.
The CCP disinformation operation has worked beyond their intelligence agencies’ wildest expectations, abetted by the Fearpers here in the United States. I only hope that the ruin caused by government’s heavy hand can be overcome in a reasonable length of time. That remains to be seen.
In the interest of transparency and to avoid potential and actual conflicts of interest, funding disclosures are standard operating procedure in the scientific research community, particularly when the research is expected to undergo peer review. The funding source should not effect the scientific method or statistical analysis of the results, but sometimes it does. For example, there have been several recent studies that have concluded that HCQ is ineffective against the Chinese Wuhan Flu and potentially dangerous. The scientific method for the study and conclusions could very well be sound, but perhaps HCQ was only given to people who were already in critical care as opposed to the first signs of infection. You may ask yourself "why?" only to discover that the study was funded by big pharm, Bill Gates, and George Soros.
“In the interest of transparency and to avoid potential and actual conflicts of interest, funding disclosures are standard operating procedure in the scientific research community, particularly when the research is expected to undergo peer review.”
Peer review is supposed to establish the research as valid, not the political bias of the scientists.
The funding disclosure is also for the benefit of the peer reviewers, who may have conflicts or potential conflicts of interest that could potentially taint their review. In my opinion, funding disclosures are essential to the scientific process, as evidenced by the “science” behind the climate change hoax, where many of the studies that are parroted by the MSM were funded by organizations tied to Soros, Gore, and and other climate change nuts.
I agree funding disclosures are important, but peer review is more important. If peer review is contaminated, then scientific progress is over.
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.
It's amazing that the only time reporters report on the funding of a study is when the study doesn't meet the media narrative.
Add to that, Neeleman is no longer associated with Jet Blue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.