Speaking up for scourge of science frauds, John Ioannidis, currently pilloried for incorrect views (he thinks the response overblown) from STAT:
A case in point involves the response to John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, who was thrust into the spotlight after writing a provocative article in STAT on Covid-19. He argued in mid-March that we didn’t have enough information on the prevalence of Covid-19 and the consequences of the infection on a population basis to justify the most extreme lockdown measures which, he hypothesized, could have dangerous consequences of their own.
We have followed the dialogue about his article from fellow academics on social media, and been concerned with personal attacks and general disparaging comments. While neither of us shares all of Ioannidis’ views on Covid-19, we both believe his voice — and those of other legitimate scientists — is important to consider, even when we ultimately disagree with some of his specific analyses or predictions.Vinay Prasad and Jeffrey S. Flier, “Scientists who express different views on Covid-19 should be heard, not demonized” at STAT
Demonizing differing views is a characteristic of superstition, not science. It says a lot about “science” today that its practitioners choose such methods.
One Reply to “At STAT: Ioannidis’ differing COVID-19 views shouldn’t be demonized”
The strangest part of this mess is that Ioannidis is NOT the dissident in terms of actual science. He is following strictly conventional public health practices, developed over the last 200 years, and agreed by everyone until March 2020. The “scientific consensus” in this case is following a method that was NEVER part of public health and ALWAYS part of war strategies until March 2020.