3 ms·
This strikes me as classic, Reddit-style conspiracy theory. I have no idea who Andrew Bogan is, but he didn’t play a major role in the execution of the study. I
by tbenst 6y ago
This strikes me as classic, Reddit-style conspiracy theory. I have no idea who Andrew Bogan is, but he didn’t play a major role in the execution of the study. I’m sure on the paper’s published the contribution section will specify what he did. Remember: this is a preprint!
- tempsy 6y agoI hate that the word “conspiracy” is now lobbed at others to immediately invalidate what they have to say, even with evidence. Did you skim through Bogan’s op-ed? He references the study without ever mentioning once that he played a role in it (no matter how small it was). You don’t need a tin foil hat to ask yourself what incentives a hedge fund manager would have in downplaying the severity of the virus by participating in the creation and media distribution of a study that does exactly that.
- tbenst 6y agoWe all gain more insight by discussing the study’s or analysis’s flaws, and improving future studies. I learned nothing of interest scientifically from the discussion of Bogan. Attack the substance, not the author.
- tempsy 6y agoThe author provides an insight into the motive for the study. If these authors decided to come together to do this study with the intention of downplaying the lethality of the virus then it poses a very serious ethics violation. Stanford should investigate.
- mieses 6y agoIs it wrong to have a theory that the virus is less lethal than widely assumed and to investigate this theory? Are scientists not allowed to investigate theories that are contrary to dominant political or religious dogma? What if they end up being right?