Preliminary (non-peer reviewed) results of a COVID-19 Antibody study in Santa Clara County, CA-home of Stanford University- were released today. What news outlets have been covering are the top line results. The purpose of this diary is to reveal the covert workings of the conservative infiltration of a seemingly benign research study.
Our story begins on March 24, 2020 in the opinion pages of the WSJ. The conservative media more than anything wanted CV-19 to be just another nasty flu. Getting a doctor from Stanford University to carry their tainted water is standard operating procedure at the WSJ. Enter Dr. Eran Bendavid, who along with his Stanford colleague Dr. Jay Bhattacharya penned an op-ed that posited the CV-19 case fatality rate was magnitudes lower than assumed at the time. The piece focused on Italy, which was at the time the epicenter of the pandemic.
“Fear of Covid-19 is based on its high estimated case fatality rate—2% to 4% of people with confirmed Covid-19 have died, according to the World Health Organization and others,” the article, headlined "Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?" and written by Dr. Eran Bendavid and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, reads. “So if 100 million Americans ultimately get the disease, two million to four million could die. We believe that estimate is deeply flawed. The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.”
“On March 6, all 3,300 people of Vò, Italy were tested, and 90 were positive, a prevalence of 2.7%,” the professors said. “Applying that prevalence to the whole province (population 955,000), which had 198 reported cases, suggests there were actually 26,000 infections at that time. That’s more than 130-fold the number of actual reported cases. Since Italy’s case fatality rate of 8% is estimated using the confirmed cases, the real fatality rate could in fact be closer to 0.06%.”
Put a pin in that 3,300 people of Vo, Italy being tested. Also mark that CFR of 0.06%.
A week later Victor Davis Hanson, sometime historian and intrepid Trumpster (author of, you guessed it, The Case For Trump). Hanson published a piece in the hallowed pages of the National Review pumping the tires of Bendavid’s & Bhattacharya’s conservative bona fides in the process. He also posited among other things the reason for California’s relatively low CV-19 fatality rate was California had experienced a severe outbreak of CV-19 in the fall of 2019 which led to CA having achieved herd immunity. No wonder he wrote The Case for Trump, he is quite comfortable conjuring up fictional evidence on a number of subjects. I link it below just for laughs but here is a snippet downplaying the seriousness of the pandemic.
It’s been well over two months since the first certified coronavirus case in the United States, so one might expect to see early symptoms of the apocalypse recently forecast by Governor Newsom. Yet a number of California’s top doctors, epidemiologists, statisticians, and biophysicists — including Stanford’s John Ioannides, Michael Levitt, Eran Bendavid, and Jay Bhattacharya — have expressed some skepticism about the bleak models predicting that we are on the verge of a statewide or even national lethal pandemic of biblical proportions
Eran Bendavid then got busy putting his Stanford Medicine position in the forefront and his conservative credentials tucked where no one could see them. He conceived & promoted the Santa Clara County CV-19 Antibody study as a way to answer the questions did California had achieve herd immunity, had California gone through a severe outbreak in the fall of 2019 undetected, and what percentage of Santa Clara County residents, and by extrapolation all Californians, had the CV-19 antibodies. However, the primary purpose of the study was to demonstrate the CFR is so low that it is not worth repressing economic activity to keep people from dying,
As is often the case, who funds research tells you more than the results of the research. In this case, it was individual donors hidden behind the cloak of anonymity who ponied up to assist Bendavid. Donors, like those of superpacs, shall remain nameless but they surely have an agenda. The study design called for 3,300 participants, exactly the number Bendavid had cited in the VO, Italy wide scale test he wrote about in the WSJ. He put out a call for participants on Facebook utilizing a non-randomized convenience sample-basically they took everyone who signed up for the study which meant they were getting people who wanted to get tested for CV-19 due to health concerns. Volunteers were set to meet at testing sites and draw blood from study participants while participants remained in their cars. Participants got a $10 Amazon gift card for their trouble. Participants continued to sign up throughout Saturday morning April 4 until the precise number of participants was achieved and then the Facebook ad was taken down. The antibody tests used in the Stanford study, which were supplied by Premier Biotech, require only a fingerstick of blood and test for IgM and IgG antibodies that indicate that a person either has coronavirus or had it and recovered. The benefit of the anti-body test over the nasal swab is well documented but of particular not here is it has a 10 minute turn around time. Results of the study were promised within a week. The week passed and participants grew antsy. Word came back that the study had been completed but was being peer reviewed. Still, no study 13 days out from testing.
Then today, out of the blue Bendavid released the abstract and top lines of the results and hit the media circuit to pump up his unfounded “between 2.4% & 4.2% of the general population have antibodies” conclusion. This brought me back to the 2012 unskewing of the polls controversy. Bendavid found 1.5% prevalence of antibodies in his research subjects- I believe that is an accurate & defensible number. Interestingly enough, the Vo, Italy widespread test study showed 90 of 3,300 positives for CV-19 or a 2.72% prevalence. That is close to the low end of what Bendavid decided to publish as his result.
Research bias is a thing. Many, most even, assume that a doctor at Stanford Medicine is without bias-that is a cultural privilege that can be exploited. Dr. Bendavid recently wrote the op-ed in the WSJ basically positing exactly the results he achieved in the Santa Clara County study (n=3,300) by citing the Vo Italy study (n=3,300). Is that a coincidence? Perhaps, but I think not. When a research study has a covert intent to prove a point, in this case that the CFR is so low that it is not worth repressing economic activity to keep people from dying, then it is important that all who read the study results be made aware of that bias-even if it is a bias that does not taint the results.
Dr. Bendavid has not revealed the funders of the study other than to cloak them in anonymity. Nowhere in the study results are Dr. Bendavid's connections to the conservative media made clear. If readers here can look at the results of this study skeptically, especially given that only 1.5% or 50 of 3,300 participants tested positive, they will be well served given that Bendavid assumes a much higher rate of antibody presence in the general population without justification or posting the studies participant cross tabs. Incredulity in reviewing the results is not only well founded here, it is proper.
Had Dr, Bendavid left his conclusion at 1.5% antibody presence in the general population, I would have no argument with him faithfully reporting what he discovered. Unskewing data is a slippery slope that helps one arrive at conclusions like Dr, Bendavid did just 3 weeks ago, that the total fatality rate in the U.S. would top out at between 20k & 40k. Let's just say data analysis is not Dr. Bendavid's strong suit.
So yes, a cautionary tale. Research the researchers before you gobble up the top lines of the next study that arrives in your news feed.
The abstract of the study is linked here COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California
Lefty Coaster did a diary on the top lines here. California Antibody Study suggests number of infections is far higher than official counts X 48-81
The VD Hanson National Review piece Coronavirus: The California Herd
