The Casual Lies of medRxiv

It’s quite a picture, the kind that encapsulates a person in ways unintended.

Released last Saturday, the photo below shows NIH Director and Acting CDC Director Jay Bhattacharya engaging in cosplay at the CDC.

Over his cutout’s shoulder, the TV is streaming a consurrent tribute to the police officer slain at the CDC last year. The police officer (David Rose) was defending the CDC from a gunman RFK, Jr., Bhattacharya, and others helped radicalize about Covid-19 vaccines to the point that he sprayed hundreds of bullets into the CDC’s main campus. Rose, a former Marine who served in Afghanistan and who had just joined the force a year earlier, was 33 years old.

During Bhattacharya’s tenure, measles, diarrhea lettuce, throwup guac, and nautical norovirus have all spread, with little being done in response even as people have gotten ill or died. The entire retail food space has been affected, and the US may lose its measles-free status. Here, courtesy of a post from Derek Beres is a rundown of some things Podcast Jay might be worrying over instead of mugging for the cameras:

Proving that the title “extremist” is well-earned, yesterday Bhattacharya and RFK, Jr., applauded as President Trump was duped into joining the anti-vax brigade with an executive order calling for a half-dozen fewer childhood vaccines and aggressive pursuit of anyone denying exemption requests.

Bhattacharya can’t seem to let go of his glory days of unaccountable social media saltiness when he could gin up declarations in Great Barrington, MA, while pro-business think tanks patted him on the back. Or when he could sensationalize half-baked preprints to serve misinformation schemes.

• His interview on Face the Nation with the implacable Margaret Brennan this past weekend only underscored what a buffoon Bhattacharya is, while Brennan showed why she runs a close second to Dana Bash for unflappable journalism in the face of man-baby tirades and idiotic dissembling.

This all reminded me how MAHA and medRxiv created the monsters we’re now seeing. The proverbial dogs who caught the car, they are now trying to escape accountability by pouting, throwing hissy fits, and playing the victim.

All this led me to revisit the notorious Santa Clara study from early 2020, where Bhattacharya made his MAHA misinformation bones.

Something new caught my eye and I realized even an apparently statement-of-fact title section of the preprint contains lies of omission and commission:

The biggest lie comes with two words: “now published.”

It’s a multifaceted lie.

The preprint was posted on April 30, 2020. Preprint servers like to play games with what amounts to publication, calling this “posted,” but making something public is publication. Let’s not be cute about it. So, in fact, this draft paper was published on April 30, 2020, complete with full-text HTML, a PDF, a DOI, and so forth.

Then there is another element to the “now published” lie, which is false equivalency. The editorially reviewed, vetted, and modified paper published in the International Journal of Epidemiology is much more tentative, qualified, and uninteresting than the preprint. There are more tests, the framing is modest, and the paper would be easy to pass over for more informative fare because it’s a dull paper with modest findings.

But medRxiv is misleading you to think the preprint you see here, dear reader, is “now published” in the journal named, when in fact a heavily and expertly modified report of more data and tests was published under that journal’s brand.

• It’s not the same as what you see here.
  • In the journal, it’s in context, in community, and in fact very different in many ways.
    • The journal paper even has two fewer authors . . .

But the lies continue, because what medRxiv presented me with at first is Version 2. You have to seek out Version 1, which contains the same “now published” language.

But neither V1 nor V2 was “published” in the International Journal of Epidemiology:

Version 1 was a very different draft of the report. Version 2 changed a lot of things in response to criticisms, and the journal version was different yet again after more editorial review.

Preprint servers are just so sloppy and second-rate. No wonder even with CZI LLC as their sugar daddy, they are also begging for handouts now because superyachts are expensive, I guess:

Note that Mark Zuckerberg is also openly speculating about how his empire can accelerate science, where he writes this:

Over the long term, the answer to risks arising from new scientific discovery will be to accelerate scientific progress, not slow it down.

Isn’t this just “move fast and break things” made fancy?

Also, can someone please tell me the “speed of science”? How do you measure it? What units are we measuring? If we’re progressing toward what Cosplay Jay and his gang of goons wants for us, I say slow down.

Science is about discovery, not an industrial process, a coding framework, or a manufacturing system. It moves in unpredictable ways and natural paces. It doesn’t take a guy in Meta pervert glasses to see that . . .