On Trust and Justified Disgust

Pete Buttigieg gave a great interview last week. He believes that "in moments like this, salvation really will come from the local and state levels. . . that aren't captive to some wacky ideological project. They're just focused on getting things done." Then at 1:05, he addresses the issue of trust when asked what more he would add to his 2020 book: 

"One theme that was in the book that I think we need to spend a lot more time thinking about is how we get information. I wrote up a little about these studies on vaccine misinformation and the fact that Russia didn't just push anti-vax messages. Often what they would do is to push an anti-vax message and a pro-vax message at the same people because the point was just to get you at each other's throats. I think a lot of that's happened recently. Yes, they had a preferred presidential candidate, but their biggest objective wasn't to have for one side to win, it was to break down our trust. It turns out all the nuclear weapons in the world are not capable of doing what this information vector into our society did with shocking efficiency. And we're behind. I don't just mean those who are on my side of the political spectrum are behind. I think America's behind. 

Our Curious Relationship with Covid Studies

Some questionable ethics in recent studies are making the rounds.

The process and ethics of Didier Raoult's work, which led to the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a Covid treatment, was scrutinized in the latest Science Magazine. 

Raoult was saying, ‘I understand everything, I have a solution,’ and people want that kind of information in troubled times, . . . If someone has such a presence in the media landscape, politicians have to listen to him—otherwise they will be really distrusted by the population. On 26 March—amid strong resistance from some other members of the scientific council—Véran issued a decree allowing HCQ to be prescribed to Covid-19 inpatients. . . . Elisabeth Bik decided to take a close look at the HCQ paper. A microbiologist by training, Bik already knew of Raoult and his reputation for prolific publication. On her blog she pointed to several problems she saw with the paper: Patients had not been randomly assigned to the treatment and control groups, which could have biased the results. . . . Besançon, too, was curious. He looked into the paper, which had been submitted to the journal on 16 March and accepted the next day, and noticed that one of the authors was also editor-in-chief at the journal. “So you have a very short reviewing time and editorial conflict of interest,” he says. “I just find this potentially a big red flag. But I thought, it’s just one paper.” . . .