116105
  • Log in
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Forum
  • Donate
  • Newsletter
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

Anatomy of a Scientific Witch-Burning

by Toby Young
26 May 2022 7:00 AM
Anatomy of a Scientific Witch-Burning

In January of last year, three economists – Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung and Steve H. Hanke – published a working paper looking at the effects of lockdowns – specifically at whether they reduced COVID-19 mortality. They concluded “that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality” – heresy, in other words, and it wasn’t long before the gate-keepers of scientific orthodoxy and their outriders in the mainstream media (aka ‘fact checkers’) set about destroying their paper. In the final version of their working paper, published this month in the Johns Hopkins University series Studies in Applied Economics, they’ve included an Appendix in which they describe this process. It’s quite the eye-opener. Below, we’ve republished it in full.

The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise, which one of us (Hanke) founded and co-directs, published “A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality” in its Studies in Applied Economics working paper series on January 21st, 2022. The working paper’s findings – that lockdowns had little to no public health effects measured by mortality – and its policy conclusions – that lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected out of hand – attracted considerable attention in the media, in the White House and halls of the U.S. Congress, among public health experts, and within the chattering classes around the world.

But, it was the strong endorsement of Dr. Marty Makary, a distinguished Professor of Medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, during his February 2nd appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight that set off a media firestorm. Indeed, on February 3rd, the Science Media Centre in London issued a press release, with statements by Prof. Neil Ferguson, Dr. Seth Flaxman, Prof. Samir Bhatt – all affiliated with Imperial College London and authors of two of the studies (Ferguson et al. (2020) and Flaxman et al. (2020)), we implicitly criticised – and Prof. David Paton (Nottingham University Business School). The release contained several criticisms of our working paper from the Imperial College team, many of which were unscientific or clearly flawed. Those were authored by Prof. Ferguson, Dr. Flaxman, and Prof. Bhatt. The press release also contained positive comments by Prof. Paton. 

The accompanying Figure 20 denotes five of the most scientific criticisms raised in Science Media Centre as well as five criticisms raised by follow-up ‘fact checkers’. Although we believe that the criticisms are with little or no merit, we are not going to engage in a critique of them in this Appendix, as the relevant criticisms are dealt with, either directly or indirectly, in the text of this working paper. Our purpose is to illustrate how biased and politicised the media was when it came to its reportage of our working paper.

Figure 20: Flow chart for criticisms raised in Science Media Centre

Snopes, which advertises itself as a “fact-checking” website, was quick to jump on the bandwagon. A few hours after the Science Media Centre press release, Snopes published a report that contained eight criticisms. Of those, five were lifted from the Science Media Centre press release. And three new but irrelevant “criticisms” were added, see Figure 20. 

On February 8th, Foreign Policy published a critique. It copied three of the Science Media Centre’s criticisms and two of the new ones added by Snopes. In short, Foreign Policy’s article presented nothing new.

Then, USA Today entered the picture on February 18th. The fact checkers at USA Today offered seven criticisms – four copied from the Science Media Centre and three from Snopes. 

On March 8, FactCheck presented ten criticisms. They included six from the Science Media Centre (including all five that we identified in Figure 20), two from Snopes, and two new confused and misleading criticisms, see Figure 20. 

There was, of course, a great deal of reportage about our working paper that appeared in the early February-April 2022 period. This material was highly repetitive, echoing material presented on February 3rd in either the Science Media Centre press release or the Snopes report. There were several similar reports, but to avoid repetition ourselves, we limit our review to the five reports contained in Figure 20. 

The striking feature of the media flow is its unoriginality. Indeed, there is little evidence that the post-Science Media Centre press release authors even engaged in basic “primary” reading of our text, let alone any “critical” reading of the text. What is evident is what Martin Heidegger identified in his 1927 magnum opus Being and Time as “idle talk” (“Gerede”). This is inauthentic discourse, simply adopting and circulating others’ opinions about something without ever engaging in even reading a primary text. 

If that was not bad enough, the post-Science Media Centre critiques are clearly biased as they all exclude any mention of Prof. Paton’s favorable appraisals of our working paper. For example, Prof. Paton made the following four points in Science Media Centre (2022):

  1. “Both parts of the paper (systematic review and the meta analysis) make a significant contribution to our understanding of lockdown effects.”
  2. “Key to a systematic review like this are the sets of search & exclusion criteria. The paper is very transparent about this which is good. They focus on difference-in-difference empirical studies. i.e. they look at papers which compare the impact of an intervention on mortality by looking before & after, but relative to other areas which did not have the intervention. As a result, modelling studies (like the well-known Flaxman Nature paper) are excluded. That is not controversial.”
  3. “[The result] is pretty consistent with other, non-systematic reviews (e.g. Herby & Allen) which is reassuring. It is also consistent with the (few) studies which look at the impact on overall excess mortality.”
  4. “More marginal in my view is their exclusion of synthetic control method (SCM) papers. Some of these papers find a significant impact of NPIs on mortality so including them might have led to somewhat higher average mortality effects. The paper gives a robust defence of their exclusion, but I think you would get people on both sides of that debate.”

As illustrated in Figure 21, none of these positive comments saw the light of day in the “fact checking” that followed the Science Media Centre’s press release on February 3rd. That’s because the new cottage industry called “fact checking” has arguably become highly politicized. As a result, there is not much fact checking, but rather opinions about whether the so-called fact checkers agreed or disagreed with the policy implications or conclusions of what they are supposed to be fact checking. So, for the most part, fact checkers were not engaged in fact checking, but were engaged in publishing opinion and narrative. By hiding behind the shroud of ‘facts’ and ‘fact-checking’, they have attempted to cast doubt, in our case, via innuendo.

Figure 21: Flow chart for appraisals raised in Science Media Centre

In closing this Appendix, we would like to indicate that we received extensive private reviews and comments on our working paper. After all, that’s the purpose of publishing working papers. Our professional correspondents did engage in a serious primary reading of our working paper and made many useful comments and suggestions. Most of their names appear in our thank-you note following the abstract. 

We engaged in a thorough review and revision of our January 21st, 2022 working paper. We can report that one error of commission was found in the original. It was not detected by any fact checkers or by those we corresponded with, but by us. The error was a computational error that involved logarithms. It was ‘small’ and did not materially affect our results.

Tags: COVID-19 MortalityFact-CheckersLockdownsStudies in Applied Economics

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

News Round-Up

Next Post

Is Trading With Russia and China Bad for National Security?

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

82 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

NEWSLETTER

To view today's newsletter click here

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editors Picks
U.S. Medicines Regulator to Add Warning to Pfizer and Moderna Vaccines Over Link to Heart Inflammation

Covid Vaccines More Likely to Put You in Hospital Than Keep You Out, BMJ Editor’s Analysis of Pfizer and Moderna Trial Data Finds

22 June 2022
by Will Jones
Why Healthcare Settings Should Drop Their Mask Requirements

Masks are Not Protective, Says Health & Safety Executive

24 June 2022
by Niall McCrae
Climate Scientist Says Humans Cause Less Than 0.05°C of Global Warming and Warns of “Anarchy” From “Delusional” Net Zero Policies

Climate Scientist Says Humans Cause Less Than 0.05°C of Global Warming and Warns of “Anarchy” From “Delusional” Net Zero Policies

24 June 2022
by Chris Morrison
News Round Up

News Round-Up

24 June 2022
by Toby Young
BBC Boycotts Mayor’s Briefings After Bristol Council Banned Reporter for Quizzing him over 9,000-Mile Flight for Climate Conference

BBC Boycotts Mayor’s Briefings After Bristol Council Banned Reporter for Quizzing him over 9,000-Mile Flight for Climate Conference

24 June 2022
by Will Jones
News Round Up

News Round-Up

36
Why Healthcare Settings Should Drop Their Mask Requirements

Masks are Not Protective, Says Health & Safety Executive

22
Climate Scientist Says Humans Cause Less Than 0.05°C of Global Warming and Warns of “Anarchy” From “Delusional” Net Zero Policies

Climate Scientist Says Humans Cause Less Than 0.05°C of Global Warming and Warns of “Anarchy” From “Delusional” Net Zero Policies

18
Is Hitler’s Invasion of Poland a Good Analogy for Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine?

Is Hitler’s Invasion of Poland a Good Analogy for Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine?

29
BBC Boycotts Mayor’s Briefings After Bristol Council Banned Reporter for Quizzing him over 9,000-Mile Flight for Climate Conference

BBC Boycotts Mayor’s Briefings After Bristol Council Banned Reporter for Quizzing him over 9,000-Mile Flight for Climate Conference

8
Why Healthcare Settings Should Drop Their Mask Requirements

Masks are Not Protective, Says Health & Safety Executive

24 June 2022
by Niall McCrae
Daily Sceptic ‘Fact Checked’ Over Claim That CO2 Increase Lags Behind Global Warming So Cannot Cause It – But That is What the Data Show

Daily Sceptic ‘Fact Checked’ Over Claim That CO2 Increase Lags Behind Global Warming So Cannot Cause It – But That is What the Data Show

23 June 2022
by Chris Morrison
We Should Welcome the Lab Leak Theory, Argues Biologist

Did SARS-CoV-2 Originate in Wuhan in 2019 or Earlier Elsewhere?

23 June 2022
by John Collis
U.S. Medicines Regulator to Add Warning to Pfizer and Moderna Vaccines Over Link to Heart Inflammation

Covid Vaccines More Likely to Put You in Hospital Than Keep You Out, BMJ Editor’s Analysis of Pfizer and Moderna Trial Data Finds

22 June 2022
by Will Jones
The BBC’s Dishonest Attack on Ivermectin

Ivermectin Study’s Negative Conclusion is at Odds With Its Findings of Significant Clinical Benefit

21 June 2022
by Will Jones

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
The Daily Sceptic
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© 2022 Skeptics Ltd.

No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Forum
  • Donate
  • Newsletter

© 2022 Daily Sceptic.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Create New Account!

Please note: To be able to comment on our articles you'll need to be a registered donor

Already have an account?
Please click here to login Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment