< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: The scaremongering Lancet

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Saturday, June 18, 2005

The scaremongering Lancet

Poor editorial judgment at The Lancet has fuelled panic over issues such as the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, hormone replacement therapy and genetically modified (GM) crops, the eminent medical researchers charge in a letter that the journal has refused to publish.

The signatories, thirty fellows of the Royal Society, two of whom are Nobel laureates, accuse it of favouring "desperate headline-seeking" over sound science, to the detriment of public health. "Under the editorship of Richard Horton, the publication of badly conducted and poorly refereed scare stories has had devastating consequences for individual and public health, in the UK and abroad, and carried a high economic cost," they say.

They forgot to mention the bogus 100,000-deaths-in-Iraq report published by the Lancet just before the US Presidential elections in '04. Can you say 'tool of Green Party-style leftist activists'.

Times Online: 'Scaremongering' Lancet accused of causing harm to health and wasting millions

Posted by Antarctic Lemur | 6/18/2005 02:51:00 PM

19 Comments:

Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Another one gone the way of Oxfam and Greepeace. I could never figure out the medical significance of post invasion casualy figures in Iraq. It's almost as though one should wonder when the Journal of the NZ Institute of Valuers will produce editorial in favour of Helegrad.

6/18/2005 03:46:00 PM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

I'm sure you would have problems working out any significance for post invasion casualty figures in Iraq Adolf. They might take some shine off the glorious deed that has been done in the name of freedom and democracy or whatever sham reason you might propogate as reason for the invasion. What was it again? WMD's, perhaps we were invited in by the Iraqis themselves. Whatever. Why bother counting the dead.

6/18/2005 08:28:00 PM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Ackers1, go bite your bum. What the hell have casualty figures in Iraq got to do with the Lancet? They might have had a smidgeon of credibility if they had bothered to mention tha casualty numbers in Iraq before the invasion. Now tell me, what were those figures again? Don't forget to add in all the kids who died for lack of medicine because Saddam, with the aid of your good friends in the UN, was siphoning of the medicine money to build a few more palaces and fund a few more terrorist groups. You really are a pathetic fool. I don't know why you bother to come here.

6/18/2005 08:46:00 PM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

To get a response like that Adolf. Amuses me no end.

6/18/2005 09:00:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Thought so. Not interested in real conversations, Ackers1.

And why Ackers, why not Ackers or Ack? You can change your display name, you know. It doesn't change the logon name.

6/18/2005 09:16:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Darn it, missed letters.

That should have said "And why Ackers1 ..." on the names.

6/18/2005 09:17:00 PM  
Blogger David said...

Just for the record:

The Lancet published the Iraq mortality study - they didn't commission it. The study did compare pre-war risk to post war – the ‘risk of death’ for an Iraqi civilian was 2.5 times greater after the war than before.

I’m not saying that the Lancet out to be publishing or publicising that sort of study, just trying to make sure the facts of the matter are understood.

6/19/2005 12:47:00 AM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

david. Thank you for that. Who did commission it? I'd be interested to know who provided and checked the data on the number of people who died in pre-invasion Iraq. Was it the same International Red Cross which monitored Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Cambodia? The whole thing was no more than a splenetic beat up by a cabal of Anti America fanatics.

6/19/2005 08:02:00 AM  
Blogger Roger said...

What did Stalin say? One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic?

6/19/2005 08:44:00 AM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

A splenetic beat up by a cabal of anti American fanatics indeed. Some evidence for this crock of hyperbole would be nice. John Quiggin has some good links to the debate about the Lancet figures.
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/05/30/why-bother-reading-the-papers/

Jonathon Schell is also a good read.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=3475

6/19/2005 10:55:00 AM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Ackers1. If you want to justify every piece of leftist propoganda by way of endless debate, you've come to the wrong place. Sorry, not interested. Got more important things to do, like watching reruns of road runner as per silent running. Go and have a look and take your Coyote Protocol with you.

6/19/2005 01:52:00 PM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

You keep busy now Adolf. Meanwhile the real world will pass right on by and you won't have even noticed.

6/19/2005 09:21:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Roger, yeah, and then he had the statisticians killed.

6/19/2005 09:25:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

In case you hadn't noticed ack ack, its the world passing you by.

You know the story - communism has been defeated, socialist is next. And your poor 3rd world dictator and Islamist terrorist mates aren't feeling safe any more.

Boohoohoo. Poor ack ack.

6/19/2005 09:50:00 PM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

AL I still feel very much connected to this world and have no idea why you seem to think my alignment is with islamic terrorists, socialists and 3rd world dictators. I will forever be a very mild mannered middle class boy with reasonably mild middle class politics. Opinionated perhaps but no more so than yourself. Have a pleasant evening....

6/19/2005 09:58:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

ackers, in my field of science we sometimes use the terms 'passive' and 'active' to describe whether a process is causing another process (active), or is coincidental to or a result of another process (passive).

To us you appear a passive supporter of the aforementioned dictators, communists, Islamist terrorists, anti-Bushitlers etc. That is: you swallow their propaganda hook line and sinker, but you don't appear to actually believe or promote the underlying idealogies (which are generally based on great dollops of envy, nihilism, cynicism and general stupidity). Therefore while you are a part of the problem, you are not the cause of it.

As for your middle class boy statement - many suicide bombers in Iraq and Palestine/Israel were middle- to upper- class. Most violent revolutionaries I can think of were middle- to upper-class. If anything there is a positive correlation between being a high-ranking revolutionary or terrorst and having a middle or upper class background. However that does not mean the relationship exists the other way around: being middle class doesn't mean you're a terrorist or violent revolutionary.

And yes I will have a nice evening, at least whats left of it.

6/19/2005 10:51:00 PM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

at least I didn't swallow the blatant lies and propaganda around the failed imperial project in Iraq. I would really be feeling bad if I'd been silly enough to fall for that one....

6/20/2005 10:26:00 AM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Ackers1... too late!

6/20/2005 11:29:00 AM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

You really are a twit when you say things like 'imperial project'.

6/20/2005 02:36:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home