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, according to the whistleblower, one must have politically correct thoughts held firmly in mind or the scientific method won’t work.
Meanwhile, Fauci’s involvement and bias is unquestioned.
Science today is often political science, with financial incentives.
Science is only allowed to be twisted by the left don’t you know.
Regardless of who funded this study I want to know why we don’t have results of a CDC funded random sampling from across the US by now? This would seem to be a pretty freaking easy thing to do and the results could be shared. My best guess as to why this hasn’t happened is that people would be a lot less likely to follow the guidelines if they knew how wide spread the illness is and therefore how low the death rate is... and why is it that that aren’t stats such as age and comorbidities easily availably for the USA on Corona deaths...
Thanks for the link.
What does it matter that how the study was funded, who funded it, and what the pre- biases were as long as the study itself was done in an unbiased manner? The Study may very well have showed information that the biased sponsor may not have wanted to hear if the study was done in an unbiased way?
“This true infection count was so high that it would drive down the virus’s local fatality rate to 0.12%–0.2%”
The big problem in claiming such a low number is that it is already EXCEEDED in part of New York city, simply by dividing the number dead from Coronavirus (in Brooklyn and Queens) by the TOTAL number of people who live there. In other words, even if you assume that EVERYONE there has been infected, the death rate is already above those numbers...and of course still climbing.
The article has a lot of damaging emails. Some participants/authors withdrew from the study because they thought it was biased. The tests’ accuracy claimed by the manufacturer was contradicted by something called “ELISA” analysis by another Stanford faculty member. But the authors never mentioned this or corrected their conclusions. They then went on Fox News, gave lots of interviews, continuing to claim they had proven something which was in fact false. It’s worth reading the article.
Ok, so will Buzzfeed now disclose that all of the pro-climate change research is biased in the same way? (and the peer reviewed journals are bought off?)
There are 23,282 dead for Covid-19 in NY City. 8,399,000 people live there. The number of dead divided by the number of residents is .002772. Why are you limiting it to two boroughs?
“There are 23,282 dead for Covid-19 in NY City. 8,399,000 people live there. The number of dead divided by the number of residents is .002772. Why are you limiting it to two boroughs?”
So you’re saying it’s 0.2772%. Thanks for PERFECTLY making my point!
So where does the whistleblower community stand on Hillary Clinton and the DNC on funding the Trump Dossier pandered in leaks to news outlets? Just aksin?
No, I’m not. I’m saying it’s .002%.
Got that right. But you know the answer...
You see unlike FearBros, when I make a mistake I admit it. Yes it’s .277%. My bad.
Yet in the country it’s about .03% if the number of dead is accurate. Why do you suppose that is?
“No, I’m not. I’m saying it’s .002%.”
Quit while you’re behind (before others chime in).
“Yet in the country it’s about .03% if the number of dead is accurate. Why do you suppose that is?”
Sorry, missed this one when I posted.
Easy answer - the rest of the country hasn’t gotten the ‘dosage’ that the pack-in New Yorkers have gotten.
I’ve admitted my error. You never will, long after this sad period of American history has passed.
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.