In the Lancet's case, it has always been politics. For example, the Iraq war study they published was utter bunk on multiple levels***, and a normal review woul

In the Lancet's case, it has always been politics. For example, the Iraq war study they published was utter bunk on multiple levels***, and a normal review would have caught that. The politics is often defencible or at least debatable, the problem is that the Lancet just doesn't hold studies that support the editor's already-decided-upon positions to much if any scrutiny... ** A comparison being centered on wartorn Sunni areas which were in power before the war, not being representative of the other areas; A prewar death rate half that of any other independent count; Ignoring the way the secret jail system worked before the war, etc.