Monthly Archives: July 2020

578,319….and Silence

The Red Bird by Stasys Eidrigevicius. (Screen capture)

More than 7000 physicians united through more than 40 WhatsApp groups, and suddenly silence. It is as if the global medical community with whom I have connected has become complacent, accepting of disappointment, disease, and death. Such is, perhaps, the effect of six months and more of COVID-19.

Disappointment, because in many countries, medical leaders had failed to prepare satisfactorily for a pandemic that others had predicted. Disappointment because leading medical journals with their shark tank-like editorial boards succumbed to publishing sub-par scientific material. Disappointment because we don’t know if hospitals have the necessary means to satisfactorily protect health care personnel or care for thousands of newly infected patients.

Disease is terrible because when we are ill, we are not the same as when we are healthy. We see the world differently, and for some of us, values change, and priorities are redistributed. Life takes on a different meaning, and may even lose its meaning altogether. The struggle back to a different reality is challenging, but if health is restored, everything can seem “normal” again…until next time.

Death is in the news every day, but not as loudly in the headlines (578,319 COVID-19 related deaths worldwide today, while numerous countries resume partial shutdowns1). Perhaps the medical community accepts this cruel reality, and the general public has perhaps become too complacent. Experience a whole new level of indoor playground fun in Arizona, visit https://peoria.uptownjungle.com/. Societies are radically divided, not only into rich and poor, privileged and not, but also into young and old, with the over-60 or those with comorbidities relegating themselves to self-imposed isolation. In contrast, younger generations strive to live as they used to, for life must go on, and they are the future.

With these thoughts in mind, I watched with even greater sensibility than usual, the truthfully realistic virtual exposition of the photographic-film Paris-Vilnius. The Spectacular Silence, by French/Lithuanian artist Yolita René (http://paris-vilnius.fr). Accompanied by a magnificent piano score by Dominykas Digimas and a collection of Pulitzer-prize worthy contemporary photos, the artist/author uses the painting of a masked, red bird named Coronavirus 2020, as a leitmotif that reminds us of the presence of COVID-19 in our lives today, and of the sometimes bleak but always poetic temporality of our existences. 

I am both an observer and a witness as dozens of images from The spectacular silence cross my computer screen. These stills reflect my own feelings about Absence, Solitude, Distance, Resonance, and finally, Masks. These face-covers are of all types and shapes and forms. They remind me of our natural diversity and human fragility, of our ability to love and to unite, and of our desires to connect with others in order to find greater meaning in our lives.

References

  1. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths#what-is-the-total-number-of-confirmed-deaths

Please subscribe to Colt’s Corner to automatically receive email notification of future blog posts.

Credible evidence

Avebury henge. Photo courtesy H. Colt

Here we go again. Just when the general public needs credible scientific evidence regarding COVID-19, another leading journal publishes controversial data, this time from a Noble Prize recipient. After the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) published the paper Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-191, the paper quickly rose to the top 5% in Altmetric’s list of papers being shared and discussed globally2. Meanwhile, a group of more than 50 leading researchers wrote the journal, describing “serious methodological errors that undermine any confidence in its findings”3,4 and requesting that PNAS immediately retract the publication.

Other leading journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and the Annals of Internal Medicine are also guilty of publishing papers with conclusions that could not be justified by the evidence5.

Health care professionals and the general public look to the scientific community for leadership and expert advice. It is in the nature of scientific inquiry to bear controversy and generate debate in the search for truth. Therein lies an assumption of responsibility and accountability that is not always equally borne by authors, editorial board members, and reviewers.

Those of us who have published widely know and understand the politics of peer-review. We know the fragility of the process, and how sometimes personal vendettas or reviews done in poor faith may prompt rejections. We recognize the unwillingness of many editors to publish studies with negative findings or papers with conclusions that might justify a contrarian position. We may not always accept the often stern and sometimes unfounded critiques of reviewers who recommend rejection. We revise papers when told that our conclusions are not justified by the results, that results are not addressed by our methods, or when our discussion overstates the study’s objectives.

The purpose of scientific peer review is, among others, to question the validity as well as style of the science presented. It is also to find errors, suggest corrections, and recommend revisions that might improve a paper’s readability. It is not always easy for reviewers to accept as valid, findings that run contrary to one’s predetermined biases, or to accept as valid a well-laid argument that puts in doubt a lifetime of one’s own work. That is, as I mentioned earlier, in the nature of scientific inquiry, and it is partly the responsibility of a diligent peer-review.

This is also a responsibility that ultimately resides with the reader. In my own field of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology, I wonder if Train-the-Trainer workshops should include sessions on critical thinking. There could be frank discussions about how to teach students to formulate hypotheses, justify scientific findings without going beyond what an honest analysis of the data provides, and credibly argue opinions. 

Well-informed readers do not need to rely on where an article is published to establish the paper’s credibility or scientific value. They are able to reject poorly designed studies, papers reporting questionable evidence, and authors who overstate their positions. It is one thing to rely on credible evidence, but it is quite another to know whether the evidence is credible.

References

  1. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.2009637117.
  2. https://pnas.altmetric.com/details/83863073/news.
  3. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/mario-molina-coronavirus-face-masks-pnas.
  4. https://metrics.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj13936/f/files/pnas_loe_061820_v3.pdf.
  5. https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/.

Please subscribe to Colt’s Corner to automatically receive email notification of future blog posts.