Critics claim the study’s methodology is dangerously flawed and question the political motives of the Stanford-led team.
...
“This is exactly the way peer-review should work in scientific work, and we are looking forward to engaging with other scholars as we proceed in this important work,” he said.
...
“I think the authors owe us all an apology… not just to us, but to Stanford,” wrote Andrew Gelman, a professor of statistics and political science and director of the Applied Statistics Center at Columbia University, calling the conclusions “some numbers that were essentially the product of a statistical error.”
...
Biostatistician Natalie E. Dean of the University of Florida called it a “consent problem.” Participants weren’t randomly selected — they were recruited using Facebook. This means it might have attracted people who thought they were exposed to the virus and wanted testing. And exposed people may have recruited other exposed people for the study.

“The prevalence drops off quickly when adjusted for even a small self-selection bias,” wrote Lonnie Chrisman, chief technical officer at the Los Gatos data software company Lumina Decision Systems.

"There are other potential biases. The research may have favored people in good health who could drive to a testing site or those with prior COVID-like illnesses who wanted antibody confirmation."