In an editorial in @nytopinion today correctly criticizing the Trump admin attacks on universities, the editors make a remarkable admission: "many professors and university administrators acted in recent years as liberal ideologues rather than seekers of empirical truth. 1/
"Academics have tried to silence debate on legitimate questions, including about Covid lockdowns, gender transition treatments and diversity, equity and inclusion".2/
"A Harvard University survey last year found that only 33 percent of graduating seniors felt comfortable expressing their opinions about controversial topics, with moderate and conservative students being the most worried about ostracization."
This is a major recognition from @nytopinion. Too bad they didn't recognize it earlier. Opinion | Colleges Are Under Attack. They Can Fight Back. - The New York Times @HdxAcademy @TheFIREorg @cafharvard @sapinker @JonHaidt
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Since the brutal murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis policeman, the country’s focus has turned to this crime, what it means, and what should be done in response. I’ve commented on Twitter on various aspects, but here is a general thread.2
The crime itself is horrifying, more-so by being committed by a police officer with others standing by or assisting. If not recorded, the crime would have been hidden. We know (or should) that this occurs far too often, with Blacks disproportionately the victims.3
Just did virtual rounds @bidmchealth with Dr Francesco Blasi, who runs a major COVID program in Milan, and a major pulmonary authority. First, I encourage all of you to seek his wise input for your conferences. A few high points to follow.1/
Their data suggest that young people are the major reservoir of virus, and old folks are the major targets, as seen elsewhere. 2/
They have been employing many therapies, including HCQ, remdesivir, as well as in some cases anti-IL-1 and steroids. Clinical observations don't suggest that any clearly beneficial, also not surprising based on lack of RCT's and much anecdotal observations. 3/
John Ioannidis asked me to post this response to @mlipsitch- Dear Marc,
I have tremendous respect for you and your work, and I am grateful for the immense effort you have put on this important issue at these difficult and uncertain times. However, calling my piece silly and 1/
chastising STAT for publishing a howler does not help.
My main plea is for better data. I will not espouse any single point in the wide range of estimates as an "expert", in all my life I have avoided showing off as an expert, and I continuously get reminded about how little I 2/
know. I agree this is a crisis and we need to respond urgently and to consider also the worst scenario. But we are making monumental, unprecedented decisions with unknown outcomes. 3/
Here is a thread on Elizabeth Holmes and how she had a brief relationship to Harvard Medical School.1
With publication of Bad Blood by John Carreyrou and the HBO documentary “The Inventor” based upon it, many have asked me how Elizabeth Holmes became a member of and then left the Harvard Medical School Board of Fellows (BOF).2
The BOF is a non-fiduciary board with members appointed by the dean. The members have diverse backgrounds, and convene twice a year to discuss the school, offer advice to the dean, and participate in networking and fundraising for the school.3
A thread on several presentations at @HarvardHBS Fusion conf on Science and Business of Aging. @sacjai (HMS 06!) describes failures of current approaches to care under Medicare, and how @CareMoreHealth which he heads is designing approaches to improve this. Quite impressive.
Richard Hodes (HMS 69!) who directs NIA gives broad and pretty comprehensive review of “geroscience” today and future possibilities.
George Church gives a thrilling Churchian overview of why he thinks aging will eventually be reversed through a variety of cutting edge gene therapy approaches being tested in his mega lab. If anyone can do it, he will! Maybe helpful for my kids?
Thread on immigration/border issues after listening to totally unsatisfying policy/political debates today. 1. Context- I have been a supporter of increased immigration for 40+ yrs. both to benefit US and to assist those seeking our opportunities.
2. I do this while supporting reasonable control over borders. The goal is to permit more immigration, not to promote illegal border crossings. I used to think this was obvious and nearly universally supported. Now realize that’s not the case.
3. The Trumpist/Republican narrative on immigration and its consequences, and its link to border security has been debunked factually, and morally so many times. I will not repeat here. I find this narrative intellectually and morally bankrupt.