The Lancet Journal became imfamous for publishing a study, led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, purporting to show that nearly 100,000 deaths had resulted from the Iraq war. As we know now the study was flawed, if not a complete fabracation, and was part of an effort to to influence the U.S. presidential election.
As if that stunt by a supposedly apolitical organization wasn’t enough now they are risking the health of the UK’s children with another “study.”
“Terrible.” “Disgracefully bad.” “Scare-mongering.”
Those are some of the words Britain’s Royal Society used last week to describe the Lancet, the United Kingdom’s leading medical journal. Much of the invective can be chalked up to an escalating spat between the two institutions: The Lancet recently called the venerable 345-year-old Royal Society “shrill and superficial” and claimed it makes no major contributions to medicine. But in the latest round of charges, the Royal Society accuses the Lancet of contributing to children’s deaths in the wake of a flawed study on measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations and of unnecessarily casting aspersions on a worthy breast-cancer treatment.
I’m no doctor and frankly I haven’t read the study in question, but if the Iraq casualty tripe is used as a yardstick I’ll side with Britain’s Royal Society.