posted March 18, 2021 10:35 PM            

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7010e3-H.pdf

posted March 26, 2021 02:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484

---

I see that this study was "funded with support from the Stanford COVID‐19 Seroprevalence Studies Fund."

posted March 26, 2021 01:18 PM            

@ Graham, since you are making an issue of who funded this particular study, is there any evidence that the "Stanford COVID‐19 Seroprevalence Studies Fund" has some conflict of interest in a study that showed lockdowns were mostly ineffective?

posted March 27, 2021 02:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
It does matter who funds a study, because there could be conflict of interest. For instance, pharmaceutical industry funding a study on vaccine efficacy.

@ Graham, since you are making an issue of who funded this particular study, is there any evidence that the "Stanford COVID‐19 Seroprevalence Studies Fund" has some conflict of interest in a study that showed lockdowns were mostly ineffective?

Let us know.

---

posted March 27, 2021 02:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
I don't care who funded it. Stanford is a liberal institution, just FYI.

---

Thank you for this, Randall ... as it is exactly the response I would expect to be given by someone with a far right mindset.

posted March 27, 2021 04:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
I fail to see what conflict Stanford would have on a study concerning lockdowns.

---

posted March 27, 2021 01:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Graham:
I have not done any research, and assume that Buzz News is probably a far-left media. ... However, an internet search for [b]Stanford COVID‐19 Seroprevalence Studies Fund threw up the following article (the validity of which, I have made no attempt to explore) :-
http://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus- neeleman-ioannidis-whistleblower [/B]

---

The article you are linking made no reference to "Stanford COVID‐19 Seroprevalence Studies Fund." Though the word Stanford was in it numerous times.

posted March 27, 2021 04:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
The article you are linking made no reference to "Stanford COVID‐19 Seroprevalence Studies Fund." Though the word Stanford was in it numerous times.

So what is exactly the point you are trying to make? I am utterly confused and it feels like I am being sent on goose chase.

---

posted March 27, 2021 05:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Graham:

Might not the 2021 named fund be the same unnamed fund that was the source of controversy in 2014?

Also I noticed that the same three scientists helmed both the 2021 and the controversial 2014 study? And, even in 2014, Neeleman and they seem to be firm believers in removing lockdown restrictions ... which perhaps influenced the outcome of both the 2014 and 2021 reports.

---

Now you're getting somewhere...

But you still have not established that it is the same contentious funding. Nor have you established that the scientists involved in it are falsifying numbers or twisting them.

posted March 27, 2021 05:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
Now you're getting somewhere...

But you still have not established that it is the same contentious funding. Nor have you established that the scientists involved in it are falsifying numbers or twisting them.

The European Journal of Clinical Investigation is a peer reviewed publication, which means that this study they published was peer reviewed.

---

It is not my aim to refute the validity of the study/report. I am seeking only to demonstrate that the OP accepted the report's findings without mindfully considering them.

And he has already confirmed that to be so.

posted March 27, 2021 05:29 PM            

I personally would not pay too much attention to the funding either if I am presented with a peer-reviewed study.

ETA: Are you asserting that every time someone posts a link to a study here, that person should check the funding of the study, otherwise it shows a far right mindset???
I mean, you checked and even you couldn't come up with anything of substance, only speculation...

posted March 27, 2021 05:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
I can't speak for him but I only recall him saying he didn't care about the funding. He said nothing about anything else so you don't know what he checks to evaluate a study.

I personally would not pay too much attention to the funding either if I am presented with a peer-reviewed study.

ETA: Are you asserting that every time someone posts a link to a study here, that person should check the funding of the study?
I mean, you checked and even you couldn't come up with anything of substance, only speculation...

---

I am asserting that each of us should ensure that we have mindfully considered the validity of the views we express or/and link to. What is required to ensure that will vary - but, in the case of a scientific study, who funds it is indeed something which should be mindfully considered.

For example, I suspect that a report upon the link between smoking and cancer might contain different conclusions if funded by a tobacco company than if funded by (say) the UK National Health Service.

posted March 27, 2021 08:25 PM            

Peer review is the ultimate fact checker. Period.

posted March 27, 2021 08:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
I think it's okay to just post a link to a scientific study from a peer reviewed journal. People of all political stripes do it here all the time, without checking funding, and for studies that are not even peer reviewed.

imo, that doesn't make anyone narrow minded and I think it's a rush to judgement to label someone because they don't check the funding of a peer reviewed study. If you, the funding checker, can demonstrate there is an issue of conflict of interest for a particular study, you are free to bring it up and advance the discussion.

---

posted March 28, 2021 01:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Apparently, your own check on the study's funding was deficient, Graham. Try to do better if you plan on schooling others.

Peer review is the ultimate fact checker. Period.

There is no expectation for anyone here to do any individual fact checking. You may even post links that you simply find interesting. Those who are obsessed with such things can get that kind of control at Facebook.

---

As stated already by me ... I did not not explore the article to which I linked. ... My aim was only to ascertain if you had made the effort to mindfully reflect upon the possibility that the findings of the report might be biassed, BEFORE flagging it up in the opening post of this thread.

Hence, my point was made when you confirmed that you had not made that effort.

posted March 28, 2021 01:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Well-said, indeed.

---