On the one hand, it's sought after, and on the other, it's questioning that the new crown study has recently been reported to have an interest in airlines.

. On April 17th, preprinted platforms published a new crown antibody testing study from Stanford University: Antibody tests based on blood samples from thousands of residents showed that the actual number of new crown infections was 85 times higher than thought, the actual number of infections increased, and
reduced the death rate from Covid-19 to 0.12%-0.2%, close to the
of influenza (see:
50
times the actual number of new coronavirus infections may be 50 times

).


.

original link:





time,
this study has become a reference
on whether and how to resume work. Some media outlets have touted the study as an exaggerated concern about Covid-19. Some cited the study as saying the Covid-19 was not so deadly that it could get people back to work and revive the economy. However, many scientists in the
have questioned the methodology of the study
.


. "The risk of death is low, and the likelihood of death on the road is similar," Ioannidis, one of the study's authors, said on Fox News, days after the study was published.



.
but recently,
the study was
anonymously reported.


.


.

research is reported to be influenced by donors



the U.S. social news site BuzzFeed News was informed that the Stanford University Research Compliance Office received an anonymous report that part of the research was provided by David Neeleman,
the founder of several airlines and a staunch
supporter of the idea that the Covid-19 is not lethal enough to keep the blockade going. Several screenshots of the emails were submitted in the report letter, including exchanges between researchers and airline executives during the study.


.
letter of report expressed "concern that researchers will be influenced by stakeholders." The report notes that the authors ignored warnings from two professors who wanted to verify the accuracy of antibody testing, and ultimately
they refused to sign the study
because they could not approve the results. The letter states that Neeleman "may have used financial means to work with one of the professors," who told colleagues by email that he was "warned" of doubts about the performance of antibody tests.


.
but
the study did not disclose in its statement of interest that it had been funded by Neeleman.
asked if Neeleman donated the study,
author Ioannidis said he didn't know
, "I don't know who ultimately funded the study." But no one, no matter who, has interfered with the design, implementation and research results of the study. Ioannidis,

, added that he doesn't know how much the study will cost, and that the money comes from an anonymous donation to a fund from Stanford University's development office: "This form of funding is the least conflict-of-interest and ensures the scientific independence of the research." "

but
, according to Neeleman himself, the author knew he had paid for the study
. Neeleman admitted that he donated $5,000 to Stanford University to the researchers and had contact with them while the study was being conducted. However,
he denied that he had influenced the course of the study or the results in any way
, that the integrity of the study had not been compromised, and that the authors had not shown the results to him before the study was published. He also dismissed allegations that he was exerting financial pressure on professors who questioned testing.


. Eran Bendavid, another co-author of the
, said no donors had any influence on the study. "We have a lot of funders, and everyone has their own interests," Bendavid said by email. We keep in touch with a lot of people, some of whom may or may not fund our research, which doesn't mean they're going to affect our research. "Research integrity is fundamental to us," julie Greicius, a spokeswoman for the
of the


, said in response to a series of questions about the report. We will take such a response very seriously. Stanford's academic watchdog is investigating the matter. Ioannidis, one of the most cited researchers in the world for



, is also a "pioneer of scientific reform", and his many auras have made the study quickly news nationally. In a landmark 2005 paper, Why Most Published Research Research Findings Are False (Why Most Studies Are False), he set out the reasons for so many poor scientific research, and he launched a campaign to eradicate inferior science.


.
ironically, the whistleblower said in the letter, "
." The new title study by Ioannidis is filled with flaws that Ioannidis has previously denounced, ranging from sloppy statistical analysis to the
of apparent conflicts of interest.


.


.

the story before and after the publication of the study





the Covid-19 pandemic is causing unprecedented economic losses, large numbers of people out of work, many companies are facing closure. How to solve these ring-related crises without causing more harm has become a hot topic of debate.


.
the public can't travel at home, one of the hardest hit industries is the airline industry, which is estimated to have lost $314 billion this year.
Neeleman, who founded a number of airlines and has undoubtedly suffered a huge impact
, wrote in a column on the news site Daily Wire on April 7th that "since the outbreak, I have been thinking about solutions that i can do to save the 40,000 jobs I am responsible for and to do everything i can to avoid more economic disasters." He went on to write that "a solution has been found" and that he "met three distinguished professors and scientists from Stanford University School of Medicine with impeccable qualifications."


. On April 3 and 4,
, more than 3,300 people drove to the site to test for antibodies. many of
were informed of the study on Facebook.
, as BuzzFeed News previously reported, some people received emails from Bhattacharya's wife, one of the study's authors, saying that "an FDA-approved test will tell them exactly if they can return to normal work without burden."


.
the Stanford University research team released its findings on April 17. But In a column in Daily Wire 10 days ago, Neeleman presented what the researchers thought would happen: "Ioannidis, Bhattacharya and Dr. Bendavid believe that the actual number of cases will vary by 10 orders of magnitude or more." This is important, if the actual number of infections is 3 million, 10 million or more, it will be a game-changer,
the fatality rate will become very small
. "

the researchers should have had a similar consensus before the study, and in a March 17 column by Ioannidis, In a column published the following week, Bhattacharya and Bendavid both said that
the Covid-19 fatality rate could be significantly lower than current cognitive
.


.
of course, Covid-19's infection death rate (IFR, the death rate for all infected people) is certainly lower than currently reported. Due to delays in diagnostic testing and the unknown number of asymptomatic/minor cases, the number of real infections is higher than we know. But the authors of the Stanford University study not only made assumptions and calculated lower mortality estimates,
some of them continued to claim that the new coronavirus is similar to the
flu.


.
Ioannidis told the audience in a video announcing the results that the "fatality rate of infection and seasonal influenza" for the new coronavirus is a level. "According to our observations, the fatality rate of the new coronavirus is about 0.1 percent, and most early data are untrustworthy," he told Wired on May 1. "

but so far the study does not support Ioannidis's view. Preliminary analysis of more than a dozen recent studies, including the Stanford University study, shows that
Covid-19 has a global infection fatality rate of 0.49 percent to 1.01 percent, five to 10 times
of influenza.


. "It's unfair to compare Covid-19 to the flu, people lack immunity to the new coronavirus, and there is a vaccine for influenza," said Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at the University of Florida at
. The risk of Covid-19 infection, hospitalization and death is much greater than that of influenza.



whistleblowers said Neeleman "sought researchers with a consistent policy view" and funded their research.
the report included a series of screenshots of emails, some dated around the beginning of April, and some deleted dates and email addresses, with out-of-the-way reports indicating the amount of Neeleman's funding.


.
, in fact, Stanford university researchers and airline executives have not concealed their personal relationships. On April 12, Neeleman appeared on a Fox News show with two authors, Bhattacharya and Bogan, on a strategy for economic shutdowns. "A science-based program that will use data to revive the economy," Neeleman tweeted.


.


.
the accuracy of antibody testing in
studies
the




report that researchers encountered some obstacles in early April. The researchers asked Taia Wang, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford University, to verify the accuracy of the antibody tests used in the study.
the antibody test is one of the unverified tests approved by the FDA this spring
, and the supplier provides internal data on its accuracy. However, before completing the Stanford study,
needs to independently verify it
.


.
in a screenshot of the email, the lead researchers and Neeleman appear to be discussing Taia Wang's test ingress. In an e-mail from Bogan and Neeleman (time and sender not shown), the message read: "David, I think you should send a message to Taia telling her that if she verifies the kit, she will support her lab." "The first and most important thing is that we have to be clear about the effectiveness of these antibody tests," wrote Neeleman, a



. Neeleman expressed interest in future antibody testing research in New York, offering Wang the possibility of funding his research: "If you want to do 5,000 tests in New York, tell me the cost, I'll raise money immediately." (In the reported email screenshot, Neeleman appears to have shared his message to Wang with the lead researcher.)


.
, however,
. Wang's test results showed that the test kit was "very poorin in samples with lower antibody levels"
, which more represented mild or asymptomatic infections.


.
published a preprinted article that included some of Wang's data. In the section describing the accuracy of the detection method, it was noted that the kit correctly showed negative results for samples from 30 uninfected populations. Antibodies were detected in only 27 cases in 37 samples of COVID-19 patients (25 in the first edition of the paper).


.
is giving.