[Mick]

Would have been nice for Stanford to get ahead of this and announce an investigation before a whistleblower came forward. I didn't have any proof, but it sure seemed to me, after learning about its egregious shortcomings that there was reason to believe the now infamous antibody study might have been fraudulent on purpose. Just follow the money.

Stanford was also involved with a seemingly more credible antibody study of MLB teams. I'm assuming that was done with a different set of folks not attached to the now tainted researchers?

Yes, it would be nice.  Wouldn't surprise me if some inhouse counsel at Stanford tried to fix it without publicity, because negative publicity is the last thing that Stanford wants or the Stanford brand needs.

[Mick]

Would have been nice for Stanford to get ahead of this and announce an investigation before a whistleblower came forward. I didn't have any proof, but it sure seemed to me, after learning about its egregious shortcomings that there was reason to believe the now infamous antibody study might have been fraudulent on purpose. Just follow the money.

Stanford was also involved with a seemingly more credible antibody study of MLB teams. I'm assuming that was done with a different set of folks not attached to the now tainted researchers?

Yes, it would be nice.  Wouldn't surprise me if some inhouse counsel at Stanford tried to fix it without publicity, because negative publicity is the last thing that Stanford wants or the Stanford brand needs.