Since the nomination of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for NIH Director, I’ve been seeing a suggestion from certain contrarian doctors for a “randomized trial” of study sections vs. a “modified lottery” to determine which grant applications are funded by the NIH. Why do RFK Jr. apologists think this is a good idea?
Earlier this month, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a plan to decrease the problem of reputational bias in grant funding. I couldn’t help but contrast how hard the NIH tries to use the most rigorous scientific criteria to decide whose grants to fund with the conspiracy theory that Anthony Fauci personally doles out NIH dollars like a mob boss to scientists who support him.
In order portray COVID-19 vaccines as dangerous, Peter Doshi has now managed to get poorly designed and performed “reanalyses” of the clinical trial data used by the FDA to grant emergency use approval of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines published in two reputable journals, The BMJ and Vaccine? What happened?
It’s depressing to see formerly respected academics spread lies about the NIH funding process in order to undermine trust in COVID-19 public health science.
I’ve frequently noted that one of the things most detested by quacks and promoters of pseudoscience is peer review. Creationists hate peer review. HIV/AIDS denialists hate it. Anti-vaccine cranks like those at Age of Autism hate it. Indeed, as blog bud Mark Hoofnagle Mark Hoofnagle, pointed out several years ago, pseudoscientists and cranks of all […]
