>almost exactly where Stanford researchers pegged it

>disseminating information about their research, offering it quickly and without filters in the effort to understand and control

> new communication model is striking at the heart of scientific integrity, publicizing research that has been corrupted by speed, sloppiness and opacity

>Stanford University, where a trio of researchers are accused of promoting faulty analysis and “tipping the scale” on antibody studies that they say proves the virus is more widespread and less lethal than we feared, and that public health restrictions are too strict

>Peer review? It’s raucous and transparent, crowdsourced — via email and Twitter — by scores of commentators.

>more than 10,000 COVID-related papers have been published since January

>29 studies were published during the 2003 SARS pandemic

>too much research lacks rigor and responsibility, experts say. Methods aren’t explained; statistical analyses aren’t transparent. Breaking from the usual protocol, testing is rushed into human study before completion of more basic work

>Treatment trials are using flawed strategies. There is duplication of effort, creating waste

>tests of the new Moderna vaccine, researchers didn’t wait to see how well it prevents infection in animals before trying it in people and tests involving just eight people, the company revealed very little data about the vaccine’s success

>“When we do research under pandemic conditions, it is important to maintain the same standard of rigor as we would outside a pandemic,”

>The nation’s first study of its type, it found that the virus was astoundingly 50 to 85 times more prevalent than presumed. But that meant the death rate was far lower.Yet the project raised eyebrows from the start. Even before they started collecting data, the researchers openly questioned “stay at home” orders.