Yes. I would say $6M initial grant split two ways is a reasonably large COI.https://www.wired.com/2017/01/john-arnold-waging-war-on-bad-science/ …
-
-
Replying to @EAllen0417 @JHowardBrainMD and
And this is a conflict of interest vis a vis the debate about covid science in what way? I'm not getting it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ShannonBrownlee @JHowardBrainMD and
You are suggesting that both of them being funded by the same company is irrelevant? Well that seems like something your readers ought to be able to decide for themselves.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @EAllen0417 @JHowardBrainMD and
AV is a foundation. Are you saying we should also mention that Prasad and Ioannidis have also received funding from RWJF and every other source of foundation money supporting their work? That's why I am confused.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ShannonBrownlee @JHowardBrainMD and
If they both take money from an organization that has funded the broad trashing of epidemiology and both have publicly trashed the science of epidemiology and then they're talking about how they think epidemiology got something wrong ... yeah.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @EAllen0417 @JHowardBrainMD and
Thanks, now I see what you were getting at. I'm glad you brought it up, but I am not sure it's relevant to this particular issue. John Ioannidis does epidemiological studies and critiques epi methodology, which I think is different from "trashing" the discipline.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ShannonBrownlee @JHowardBrainMD and
Saying that most everything a discipline publishes is worthless strikes me as "trashing" but YMMV. Prasad does the *same thing* and so does Taubes and guess what, Taubes also gets $$ from the Arnold's company, too. Seems like AV gets what it pays for.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @EAllen0417 @ShannonBrownlee and
It's notable that Ioannidis's own work on COVID-19 does not remotely approach the standards of rigor that he would apply to the work of others.
4 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @Merz @EAllen0417 and
JI is now engaging in revisionist history, claiming he presented range of outcomes for covid deaths when he did not. He wasn't just wrong, but he's trying to weasel out of his wrongness & is defended by some who say he just had a different opinion about balancing trade-offs.
1 reply 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @JHowardBrainMD @EAllen0417 and
Yeah, that’s bunk. He revealed himself as a shoddy practitioner — considerably more so than many he’s criticized over the years. He doesn’t walk the talk.
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes
Yep. Sadly, when it came to the biggest test a scientist could face in a century, Ioannidis failed utterly. It now makes me question a lot of his other work, given how shoddy he's been with respect to #COVID19.
-
-
Right: He could have easily said "In March, my mid-range estimates of deaths was 10K. Sadly, that was too optimistic." But no, he now pretends that was part of a range he presented. It wasn't. That's where he and defenders move from just wrong to covid-denialists.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @JHowardBrainMD @Merz and
Precisely. All he had to do was to say, "I screwed up. Here's how I screwed up. I'll do better in the future." If he had done that, we'd probably already have forgotten about his 10K estimate. But, noooo! He couldn't.pic.twitter.com/jouxm6Bjx8
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.