Yves here. I wish this video on how scientists have been flogging their own crap Covid-19 research via preprints and how that’s done considerable damage had a transcript, but it is short enough that hopefully you won’t find it burdensome to listen to it. It’s an addendum of sorts to Lambert’s post earlier in the week, Don’t “Trust the Science,” Trust Science While You Hone Your Critical Thinking Skills.

If you go to the YouTube page for this video, you find it has a “Reference/Reading” list that ties into the key claims of the Medlife Crisis video.

The video makes some important points, such as shredding preprints (“80% of studies published are complete garbage”), spending some time on the sad decline of Stanford’s Dr. John Ioannidis (“Covid-19 is no more dangerous than the flu”) as well as describing how a study that claimed that a substantial majority of Covid victims showed heart damage on MRIs was highly suspect. But readers will no doubt take issue with the forceful attack on hydroxychloroquinine, when virtually all studies focused on using it as a treatment, when the recommended use case was as a prophylactic. Again, the plural of anecdote is not data, but there is much more receptivity to hydroxycholorquinine in the Global South. From a June InterPress news story discussing why Covid-19 infection and death rates had been so low in Africa. One factor is a relatively young population. Another is generally good official responses. A third is widespread BCG vaccinations. But a fourth seems to be anti-malarial use:

In Senegal and Madagascar for example, COVID-19 patients on hydroxychloroquine and the herbal remedy Artemisia annua have been observed to recover faster from the disease with lower deaths. In both countries, even with rising cases, recovery rates from Covid19 are much higher – consistent with the observations in most malaria prone countries. Interestingly, malaria is not prevalent in Africa’s Covid-19 hotspots of South Africa and North Africa.

Regardless, please watch this short video and have fun with it. Even if you disagree with all of its examples, it does illustrate the ongoing corruption of what passes for science.