3 ms·
> the editors seemed to address the issue he raised only after he and his colleagues submitted a comment article Yikes. And the Lancet is generally regarded as
by notjoemama 3y ago
> the editors seemed to address the issue he raised only after he and his colleagues submitted a comment article
Yikes. And the Lancet is generally regarded as a very reputable source. After reading the linked post I think I understand their initial defense, a little anyway.
- dash2 3y agoAs a social scientist, I'd question that. I have seen so much bad social science done in the Lancet that I groan when I hear the name. YMMV, because doctors are in general pretty dumb about social science; maybe it is a great journal in other fields.
- goalieca 3y agoLancet was the journal to publish the vaccine and Autism link and the editor famously gave an interview during Covid about how they chose articles to advance certain issues.
- DoingIsLearning 3y agoYes it is true. But Jennifer Ann McCarthy and Oprah Winfrey were a lot more pivotal in starting this problem with real and avoidable children deaths more so than a fraudulent RCT from a now unlicensed charlatan. I believe it is important to remember people's contribution to problems and where they sat on which side of history.
- bobmaxup 3y agoIsn't The Lancet infamous for high profile retractions?