Scientists Lying about Science III: A major example, out of several…

This is Part 3 of the discussion of my view of the corrupting influence that the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) has on America. See Part 1 & Part 2.

In the prior commentary, I promised two specific major examples of the negative influence of NAS on our society. The first (re K-12 Science education) is in Part 2. This is the second.

In 2025, NAS published a 330± page treatise with a promising title: “Understanding and Addressing Misinformation About Science.”

The question is: is this real Science, or is it more of the same malarky put out by Left-wing groups cleverly disguised as real Science? I say the latter.

NAS and COVID-19 Early Treatment —

Let’s look at one of the most significant Science issues of our lifetime: the COVID-19 matter, and the resultant government policies. NAS acknowledges that it was “Created to Advise the Government,” specifically to provide us:

“independent, objective advice to inform policy with evidence, spark progress and innovation, and confront challenging issues for the benefit of society.” [Note that the word “Scientific” (e.g., scientific advice) is MIA.]

So what does this new NAS book say about COVID-19? Here is a representative sample (see page 36):

“Explanations of the origins and transmission of COVID-19 evolved continuously over several months as new knowledge and evidence accumulated… {For example,} there was uncertainty about the potential effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a treatment for COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic. Over the next few months, as more studies were published assessing the potential therapeutic benefit of HCQ, the picture became clearer that HCQ was not an effective treatment (Abella et al., 2021; Bull-Otterson et al., 2020; Hennekens et al., 2022; The ­ RECOVERY­ Collaborative Group, 2020)…”

Now, to 99.9% of the readers of that material, this all sounds scientific and very reasonable. But is it? Let’s look at this important matter more closely.

Considering that over 1.1 Million Americans died from COVID-19 (almost three times the number of Americans killed in WWII!), a fundamental scientific medical question is: do we have any effective early treatments of COVID-19? In other words, if a person is diagnosed with COVID-19, is immediate treatment with XYZ statistically beneficial?

This part of the NAS book addressed whether HCQ (a popular option) was effective for early treatment of COVID-19, and the NAS position is unequivocally NO, it is not.

To support their official answer to this MAJOR life-and-death matter, they cite four “scientific studies.” Just the fact of seeing citations will convince 99% of the public that there is merit to their conclusion. But is there?

As a scientist, I don’t take people’s word (including NAS scientists’ word) for such an important matter. As a minimum, I will read the cited studies to see what they actually say. Here is what I found:

FACT ONE: NONE of the four citations above supports NAS’s conclusion!

Abella: Not an applicable study regarding the effectiveness of HCQ, as it was a “Very small, early-terminated, underpowered PrEP RCT.”

Bull-Otterson: Not a study on HCQ efficacy, but a discussion of HCQ prescriptions.

Hennekens: Not a study on HCQ efficacy but a personal commentary.

RECOVERY: Not applicable as this is a late-stage (not an early treatment) study.

Conclusion: Zero of these citations support the NAS statement that“HCQ was not an effective treatment.” This is dishonest and incompetent!

FACT TWO: What do legitimate studies actually say about HCQ?

Remembering that this Report was published in 2025, it turns out that 38 HCQ Early Treatment COVID-19 studies were available to the authors. Stunningly, ZERO of these were cited!

What did these published studies conclude? The results are that Early Treatment of COVID-19 patients with HCQ has a 66%± efficacy rate!

This is an extremely positive conclusion. For example (per the data):

1) The FDA favored Paxlovid with an EUA, and based on 59 studies, it has an Early Treatment effectiveness of only 18%.

2) The FDA also gave Molnupiravir an EUA, and based on their own study, it had an Early Treatment effectiveness of 30%. Additional studies have since been done, and the current Early Treatment effectiveness is actually 9%.

3) Despite the HCQ studies and their superior results (e.g., here), the FDA (to this date) has not given HCQ the blessing of an EUA. Strong support from NAS would have made this happen.

The superior effectiveness of HCQ (which was available long before either of the FDA-endorsed options) indicates that hundreds of thousands of American lives would likely have been saved if NAS had gotten behind this effective, inexpensive, and safe COVID-19 early treatment option.

FACT THREE: This recent unscientific treatment of HCQ is consistent with NAS’s prior efforts.

For example, NAS had released an earlier major Report: “Critical Findings on COVID-19: Select Publications from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.” So what does it say in that about HCQ?

First, it lists it as an “unproven drug” (page 251). Then it says (page 268): “the roll out of hydroxychloroquine under EUA illustrated the potential risks when more complete data will show a treatment released under EUA lacks benefit and is associated with serious safety concerns.”

I’ve already disproven the inaccurate “unproven drug” as well as the dishonest “lacks benefit” assertions (see above).

To support their claim of “serious safety concerns,” it lists one citation, a study by Chen, et al. Again, I had the temerity to go and read the Chen study. The stunning thing is that the study does not even mention HCQ! In other words, the NAS sentence regarding HCQ is extremely misleading.

What we had then (and still have now) is unscientific information conveyed to the public by NAS. Astoundingly, the most recent misinformation is in a book about Scientific Misinformation, written by the National Academies of Sciences!!!

NAS and the Scientific Method —

One other sample comment about the NAS book relates to the prior Part 2 commentary. That was about how NAS has been instrumental in undermining the Science education of our K-12 students by creating the NGSS…

One of the main concerns there is that they have purposefully removed the traditional Scientific Method from the NGSS curriculum. Based on that, out of curiosity, I searched this new polemic for “scientific method.” There was one single mention in 356 pages (page 47). It says this:

“The Scientific Method is generally viewed as a reliable, and thus a trustworthy, process for gaining knowledge about an increasingly complex world beset by multifaceted problems (e.g., environmental degradation, public health threats).”

This is a radically different position than what was taken by the multiple NAS members when they wrote the NGSS/Framework. So is this NAS’ way of saying that their prior position on the Scientific Method was misinformation?

What Next —

The implications and consequences of the National Academies of Sciences having radically departed from Real Science are extraordinarily profound — and too extensive to cover in this installment. Part 4 will outline those, along with some suggestions for solving this gigantic problem.

Please give this matter some Critical Thinking, as your input as a victimized person could be invaluable.

©2025 John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it, and (if it is credible) I will be glad to reconsider my position.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

The post Scientists Lying about Science III: A major example, out of several… appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.