.@angie_rasmussen clearly believes that @Ayjchan uses that tactic, especially but not exclusively on Twitter. I tend to agree, though more narrowly. AR uses her twitter thread to apply what she sees as the AC COI standards to ACs own work, and finds them wanting 2/
I don't *think* that Angie's point is to accuse Alina Chan of dripping with undisclosued COIs. I don't think she is. It would have been proper for Chan to acknowledge waiver of publication charges from MBE, and all input drafting her papers, but not doing so is not a felony 3/
Angie points out that Alina didn't include any acknowledgements in her preprint. That's true. But I also think Alina didn't *get* much useful input from others on the preprint, so maybe there wasn't much to acknowledge. 4/ x.com/angie_rasmusse…
Angie points out that Alina didn't include any acknowledgements in her preprint. That's true. But I also think Alina didn't *get* much useful input from others on the preprint, so maybe there wasn't much to acknowledge. 4/ x.com/angie_rasmusse…
And I mean that. In full disclosure myself, after I read the preprint I sent @Ayjchan an email with some suggestions focused on the writing and narrative. COIs are real, but unfounded accusations of COIs are often used as a cudgel, and that is, I think, Angie's point. 5/
This aspect of the conversation is a tiresome distration, and it's meant to be. I can't help but be reminded that the insufferably self-righteous Vinay Prasad discloses the fact of his Substack, podcast, and Patreon revenue on his "research" papers. 6/
Context: when the unredacted "Fauci emails" came out, they were a big dud for the LLH. The scientists talked about science, considered a lab origin seriously, Fauci treated it as a potential national security issue, the PO authors eventually worked on a manuscript, 7/
and sent Fauci the mss after it was accepted. There are no emails with Fauci or Collins commenting on the manuscript, and the disclosures include all the Fauci-Farrar correspondence and the Fauci-Andersen correspondence. 8/
The big revelation was *supposed* to be that the PO authors were hell-bent on hiding knowledge of a lab leak. But it turns out that they took it seriously, acted quickly, and came to their conclusions written in the paper by ordinary scientific means. 9/
So with that balloon deflated, Chan and others say the big revelation is undisclosed COIs because of input by their budgetary overlords, with some insisting without a shred evidence that monetary incentives were being used 10/
But this all seems to hang on one email from Kristian to Fauci after manuscript acceptance thanking him for his leadership on guidance (this during the early pandemic when Fauci was on TV every day being thanked for his leadership and guidance). 11/
COIs are real, and should be taken seriously. When the DRASTIC folks manipulated peer review to get a paper through, that was utterly corrupt, and should be taken seriously. But discerning COI is not always obvious, as the tedious arguments now demonstrate. 12/
At any rate, I suppose on my next paper I'll disclose that I have a YouTube channel. As the old saying goes, "there's TENS of dollars to be made in bluegrass music" /fin