Coronavirus in Massachusetts (Boston, Worcester, Springfield: home, to move, eat)

[OutdoorLover]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Also, The Lancet has been a great resource for COVID related info. https://www.thelancet.com/

The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) are 3 top-notch medical journals.

A lot is written about Covid-19 in scientific journals as well, but if you're not a scientist, those can be tough sledding; actually, even for scientists, unless they have interdisciplinary knowledge, the scientific journals can be tough sledding too - most research papers aren't written for the broad scientific community, they are written for specialists in the field of the paper's topic.

[OutdoorLover]

If people are curious about where treatment for Covid-19 stands, here is a link to a discussion between Howard Bauchner, chief Editor of JAMA, and two leading intensive care physicians who have a focus on treating Covid-19, one from the US, and one from Holland. It's a high quality discussion, about 30 minutes. I try to listen to at least one of these each month.

https://edhub.ama-assn.org/jn-learni...layer/18577147

P.S. You might not get it out of the above, but there has been a great deal of progress in treating Covid-19, over where we were during the early spring surge. Mind you, lots of people are still dying today, but that's during a case level that's multiple times higher than in spring. Back then some important things were known scientifically, but that doesn't make treatment selection trivial. Clinicians were trying all kinds of things, and it's difficult to get clarity about what's working and what isn't, in the absence of rigorous studies. While there's certainly room for improvement, today, there is a standard of care that was informed by science and has been validated by clinical studies, and is saving many lives. Now, if we could only get the case count down - because even with improved treatments, we still have thousands of Americans dying each day, due to huge caseloads.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) are 3 top-notch medical journals.

A lot is written about Covid-19 in scientific journals as well, but if you're not a scientist, those can be tough sledding; actually, even for scientists, unless they have interdisciplinary knowledge, the scientific journals can be tough sledding too - most research papers aren't written for the broad scientific community, they are written for specialists in the field of the paper's topic.

Yes, scholarly medical journals can be good sources for information on COVID. If you have basic research methods courses under your belt they are easier to decipher, but not necessary. Astracts and conclusions can be more helpful for non medical people. I generally only look at COVID studies when pointed to specific studies that are referenced in non-medical sources I happen to be reading. They, also, need to be looked at critically though because even scientific studies can be influenced by funding sources.

[Shrewsburried]

Science Magazine’s ‘In the Pipeline’ blog is useful if trying to understand what’s happening in the pharma/vaccine/research world. Derek Lowe largely steers clear of the politics and focuses on the ongoing research and news relating to. Studies are typically linked for those that wish to take a deep dive and unlike most internet commentary, the users comments are not a complete cesspool.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/

[OutdoorLover]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Yes, scholarly medical journals can be good sources for information on COVID. If you have basic research methods courses under your belt they are easier to decipher, but not necessary. Astracts and conclusions can be more helpful for non medical people. I generally only look at COVID studies when pointed to specific studies that are referenced in non-medical sources I happen to be reading. They, also, need to be looked at critically though because even scientific studies can be influenced by funding sources.

Peer review isn't perfect, and papers do get through with issues, which could include a funding bias. However, this isn't at all common. First of all, funding sources must be declared, but more importantly, the journal's editor selects other experts to criticize each submission. Reviewers are tasked with being critical, but fair and accurate. So you've got experts probing for weaknesses and calling them out for the editor, and making a recommendation on whether your paper is worthy or not. Better journals will also have better reviewers. These reviewers, and the authors, normally all know one another. They see one another at scientific conferences, they are colleagues as well as rivals. It's a small world where you may have 100 people in the world who would be your peers. Everyone is going for the regard of those peers. Even though a problem can slip by reviewers, anything consequential will come out later anyway. Making a mistake in a paper lowers that esteem, and if it were understood to be a matter of dishonesty (whether for funding or any other reason), your name will be ruined, and you'll be a pariah. Yes, there are still unscrupulous people who do it anyway, but those are not scientists in the mainstream, those are outliers, who essentially don't have this esteem of their peers to begin with.

I was publishing and doing hard core research for about 15 years. During that time, I never heard of someone knowingly publishing something that was false, in a research paper in my field. Anyone who is worth anything, would have too much to lose. My own view was to aim for perfection. I couldn't actually attain that, but any gaps wouldn't be for lack of effort.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

Peer review isn't perfect, and papers do get through with issues, which could include a funding bias. However, this isn't at all common. First of all, funding sources must be declared, but more importantly, the journal's editor selects other experts to criticize each submission. Reviewers are tasked with being critical, but fair and accurate. So you've got experts probing for weaknesses and calling them out for the editor, and making a recommendation on whether your paper is worthy or not. Better journals will also have better reviewers. These reviewers, and the authors, normally all know one another. They see one another at scientific conferences, they are colleagues as well as rivals. It's a small world where you may have 100 people in the world who would be your peers. Everyone is going for the regard of those peers. Making a mistake in a paper lowers that esteem, and if it were understood to be a matter of dishonesty (whether for funding or any other reason), your name will be ruined.

I am not so sure about this claim. There is research on that as well, however, some of which is mentioned at this URL but there are other sources: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23135338/

There is a ton of information available about this as it pertains to both medical and non-medical disciplines, but on a more cursory note I would also suggest listening to the ideas of Eric Weinstein and his experiences with Harvard. I also found Johann Hari's book Lost Connections to be a fascinating examination of the the pharmaceutical industry's influence on the research that led to the proliferation of psychotropics.

[OutdoorLover]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

I am not so sure about this claim. There is research on that as well, however, some of which is mentioned at this URL but there are other sources: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23135338/

There is a ton of information available about this as it pertains to both medical and non-medical disciplines, but on a more cursory note I would also suggest listening to the ideas of Eric Weinstein and his experiences with Harvard. I also found Johann Hari's book Lost Connections to be a fascinating examination of the the pharmaceutical industry's influence on the research that led to the proliferation of psychotropics.

I don't know exactly what is being alleged there. I only know my own experience, and like I said, I never even heard of someone knowingly submitting something false in my field, and it would never have entered my mind to do so.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

I don't know exactly what is being alleged there. I only know my own experience, and like I said, I never even heard of someone knowingly submitting something false in my field, and it would never have entered my mind to do so.

Based on my observations of the world, and what I've read, I certainly wouldn't find it surprising that large sums of multinational corporate money, coupled with a breakdown in ethics and combined with human nature could influence almost anything. When enough money is at stake, lots of things are possible.

[bostongymjunkie]

I'd also like to nuance my comments above to say that based on what I have learned, it's not so much the malevolence of individual scientists that are in question here, but the influence on what gets funded, which studies get published, which ones don't get funded, and how those studies are used to advance policy.

[Shrewsburried]

Sure, but capital allocation is going to be inherently directed towards areas of perceived opportunity, impact, and/or return (I.e., value)

Grant allocation through DARPA, NIH, NFS, etc. have been long accused of conservative bias (not really in the political sense) due to their qualifications in regards to ‘value’, perceived or real. Given limited resources, I don’t think we want completely blind investment, but it does allow bias to leak in.