Sure. Here's one example article reviewing a recent paper from ICL: https://dailysceptic.org/2021/08/24/examining-the-latest-paper-from-imperial-college-london

Sure. Here's one example article reviewing a recent paper from ICL: https://dailysceptic.org/2021/08/24/examining-the-latest-paper-from-imperial-college-london/ https://dailysceptic.org/2021/08/24/examining-the-latest-pap... The same site has a lot of paper reviews, especially focusing on that team (because they are influential). Look at the sidebar section under "How reliable is the modelling". What you may be doing here is reading Ioannidis' papers and saying, wow, these are total crap. Therefore, he is a bad scientist. This would be an easy mistake to make if you aren't familiar with the low quality of the scientific literature. I'm here to tell you that his papers are not that great, but his competition is far worse. It's not that JPI is a bad scientist, it's that "good scientists" that meet the basic thresholds we've all been socially conditioned to accept hardly seem to exist in the wild. This does not necessarily make Ioannidis a hypocrite or fraud. It kind of does, but the problems he identified are all structural and to do with bad academic incentives. Yet, Ioannidis is himself an academic. He is working within the system that creates those bad incentives, and he is not immune to them either. It probably isn't possible to do great science in academia in fields like epidemiology, where experiments aren't possible, but at least he gives the impression he's trying. Other teams are full blown political activists pretending to be scientists, like the paper I linked to above, where the first sentence is a lie about publicly available statistics and the entire goal of the paper is to tell policymakers what to do.