Institutional credentials should be weighed against research areas of expertise / specialization, and tools for the community to demote/downvote flawed information should be put in place.  


University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

"Why do these ridiculous statements without any scientific data come from old white men who have zero experience working on #infectiousdiseases outbreaks? Just b/c you are affiliated with a big name university doesn’t give you credibility. In fact it causes more problems."

-@krutikakuppalli

Dr.Krutika Kuppalli tweets about the spread of misinformation because of influential people who are not credible in the field of epidemiology

Tweet is replying to Michael Levitt (biophysicist and researcher in complex systems) after he made a claim on July 25, 2020 that COVID-19 will be over. The tweet discusses the issue of members of the scientific community with institutional credentials making extraordinary claims about COVID-19 that the public listens to because they seem like credible sources. This is despite the fact that their credentials are not directly related to infectious diseases or epidemiology, and they have not consulted with the appropriate experts. 

Analysis of Dr.Krutika Kuppalli tweet

Statisticians and researchers in complex systems will sometimes extract information from data alone without consulting epidemiologists, making their data incomplete and claims flawed regarding COVID-19. They rely on their expertise alone to make “informed” statements. 

Hypothesis 1 of Dr.Krutika Kuppalli tweet

Hypothesis 2 (solution) of Dr.Krutika Kuppalli tweet

Problematic claims coming from COVID-19 researchers will endure more scrutiny among a research community than among the public. Therefore, Levitt’s extraordinary claim regarding COVID-19 coming to an end in the US would probably not have picked up serious traction if it was directly to a solely researcher audience. 

Learn Before

Related