I'm surprised to find this video riveting, compelling. Your testimony was outstanding, much-needed. I nominate you (along with Fauci & Collins) as a true Guardian of the Galaxy (or just Earth, humanity). I eagerly await the definitive book on this story, but meanwhile am increasingly distressed by the terrible direction MAGA Republicans have taken science, truth, reality, etc. I'm a big fan of skepticism & rational inquiry. The sham (acknowledged accidentally by McCarthy) of the Benghazi investigations comes to mind. Politicization is way out of hand, a cancer on our psyche & sanity, a huge waste of resources. Thank you for taking a strong public stand on this (and sharing that story).
I appreciate the fact that you will allow all comments here. I also appreciate the fact that you appeared in front of the House SubCommittee unlike the EICs at The Lancet and Nature Medicine who have much more to answer for.
You comported yourself well, unlike what you have done on social media.
To be very clear, I understand that everyone can have biases but it's not acceptable for the Editor-in-Chief of "Science" to refer to all of the evidence behind a lab origin to be compared to an episode of "Homeland" as late as 2023.
Your attack piece on the Surgeon General of the State of Florida back in 2022 was shameful. He took a major step back in his career as faculty at UCLA to come to FL to practice real Evidence Based Medicine. Ladapo has over 80 peer reviewed papers in the literature. He has an MD and PhD from Harvard. His critique of the pandemic response is exemplary. In that hit piece, you didn't cite any literature, you didn't address the hundreds of studies that show benefit from HCQ.
I understand well that that was an opinion piece only. I just find it difficult to think that a person in your position would be so openly opinionated about science and so quick to attack a highly credentialed physician and researcher and expect to the public to trust you to procure the best studies for the scientific community.
As a physician and engineer who has looked to your publication for the last thirty years I am disappointed in your conduct and ability to sense-make. It's a scary time indeed.
What’s missing is the fact that “peer review” itself is flawed unless there is a divergence of hypotheses and opinions. Even by “Science” standards, peers invited for review are those that reside in the same echo chamber. That MUST change. And it’s largely up to the editors and editorial staff to bring about the change.
I'm surprised to find this video riveting, compelling. Your testimony was outstanding, much-needed. I nominate you (along with Fauci & Collins) as a true Guardian of the Galaxy (or just Earth, humanity). I eagerly await the definitive book on this story, but meanwhile am increasingly distressed by the terrible direction MAGA Republicans have taken science, truth, reality, etc. I'm a big fan of skepticism & rational inquiry. The sham (acknowledged accidentally by McCarthy) of the Benghazi investigations comes to mind. Politicization is way out of hand, a cancer on our psyche & sanity, a huge waste of resources. Thank you for taking a strong public stand on this (and sharing that story).
I appreciate the fact that you will allow all comments here. I also appreciate the fact that you appeared in front of the House SubCommittee unlike the EICs at The Lancet and Nature Medicine who have much more to answer for.
You comported yourself well, unlike what you have done on social media.
To be very clear, I understand that everyone can have biases but it's not acceptable for the Editor-in-Chief of "Science" to refer to all of the evidence behind a lab origin to be compared to an episode of "Homeland" as late as 2023.
Your attack piece on the Surgeon General of the State of Florida back in 2022 was shameful. He took a major step back in his career as faculty at UCLA to come to FL to practice real Evidence Based Medicine. Ladapo has over 80 peer reviewed papers in the literature. He has an MD and PhD from Harvard. His critique of the pandemic response is exemplary. In that hit piece, you didn't cite any literature, you didn't address the hundreds of studies that show benefit from HCQ.
I understand well that that was an opinion piece only. I just find it difficult to think that a person in your position would be so openly opinionated about science and so quick to attack a highly credentialed physician and researcher and expect to the public to trust you to procure the best studies for the scientific community.
As a physician and engineer who has looked to your publication for the last thirty years I am disappointed in your conduct and ability to sense-make. It's a scary time indeed.
Well presented.
What’s missing is the fact that “peer review” itself is flawed unless there is a divergence of hypotheses and opinions. Even by “Science” standards, peers invited for review are those that reside in the same echo chamber. That MUST change. And it’s largely up to the editors and editorial staff to bring about the change.