Does it seem odd to anyone else that the editors of JAMA resigned over this podcast--which caused no medical harm to…
but the editor of the Lancet has not resigned, despite scandal after scandal linked to hoax after hoax that he failed to detect--and then failed to retract, after smearing the whistleblowers--
as a result of which thousands if not hundreds of thousands of patients have received inadequate care (the PACE scandal); research money has failed to go where it should have (ditto--
and that paper, which claimed chronic fatigue was a psychosomatic syndrome, probably resulted not only in suffering patients being told it was all in their heads, not only in their being given bad medical advice,
but in stifled research agendas--which is a great shame, since that research might have led to important insights about long Covid); *many* deaths of vaccine skepticism as the result of the Wakefield scandal;
let's not even mention the lamentable Iraq War paper; the Sputnik vaccine scandal; the list goes on--and while it's impossible to say how many people received bad medical advice or indeed died as a result,
the common-sense answer is "many." Yet the editor of the Lancet hasn't resigned. Two editors of JAMA, however, resigned because JAMA hosted a podcast about structural racism in medicine--
which violated some aspect of the Orthodoxy, although for the life of me I can't figure out which. Apparently it was the faux pas of having two white men discuss the issue?
And a tweet that said, "No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in medical care," which was deemed ... offensive, I suppose, even though that's the core thesis:
"structural racism" refers to racism that is inherent to a system even when the individuals who comprise it are not racist. No?

This resulted in two editors resigning.
The Lancet's serial publication of fraudulent papers, refusal to retract them, and the vast medical damage this has done--as well as damage to the public's trust?
No reason to fall on your sword over something silly like that, apparently.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Claire Berlinski.

Claire Berlinski. Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ClaireBerlinski

10 Jun
Consider the harm they did when they told the world the Sputnik vaccine was astonishingly effective. Or that the origins of Covid19 were zoonotic--end of story!--and to question this marked you as a wild-eyed conspiracy freak. Or the damage they did to chronic fatigue patients-
and this list just goes on and on. How about the damage they did to the emotional health of Iraq War veterans, or all the people they smeared for pointing out problems in the data.
Or the fraudulent hydroxychloroquine paper, published when the world most *needed* to be confident of papers about this drug published in the Lancet. Or the social distancing paper.
Read 10 tweets
8 Jun
You mean, most journalists lack a basic science education? Yes, I think that's sometimes true. And many are too-easily cowed by credentials. But laziness plays a large role, too--or to be kinder, lack of time. Example:
When I actually bothered to read it, I realized that the references in the infamous Nature article didn't, actually, support the argument the authors were making. That was something I *could* have seen on the day it was published.
I'm not a virologist or a biochemist, but I can read a paper, look up the terms, and ask, "Is this evidence of what they say it is?" I certainly understand enough biology, chemistry, and logic to do that. My reading comprehension skills are good.
Read 25 tweets
6 Jun
Why, on June 6, after all the reporting that's been done in the past month--including *by the Washington Post*--are two WaPo reporters going with this "experts say it's nearly impossible" nonsense?…
@washingtonpost, don't you have editors? If so, they should be preventing your reporters from saying something that makes them look as if they even don't read the newspaper they write for, no less any other news organ.
You realize, don't you, that these experts--kind of famously!--have been caught up in a massive corruption scandal? That this is actually *the biggest story* in the global news right now? I mean, seriously:
Read 10 tweets
5 Jun
This is an extraordinary account of the rise of DRASTIC. It suggests interesting things. What DRASTIC did is what the media, in principle, is supposed to do. This is the disinfectant of sunlight. But the media missed all of…
A handful of wackadoos are now congratulating themselves for having insisted, from the start, that it came from a lab. But they didn't do what DRASTIC did: find evidence to support their instinct.
If you insisted it came from a Wuhan lab before seeing any evidence, that's not because you're prescient; it's because you're as lazy as your journalistic confrères who swallowed the zoonosis story wholesale.
Read 14 tweets
1 Jun
There are further reasons to keep this question alive. At a time when public confidence in our institutions has reached a truly dangerous nadir, it's important to shore up the few that remain:
We need to ask how a scientist *with* a conflict of interest--a classic conflict-- was able to round up so many members of his profession and persuade them to sign a letter in Nature putting their professional imprimatur behind a statement with massive political ramifications--
while signing it with the words, "I declare I have no conflict of interest." Science as an institution can't survive unless we insist it be practiced by certain rules, among them, declaring conflicts of interest honestly.
Read 4 tweets
31 May
I'm not persuaded that understanding the origins is key to risk mitigation. We should operate on the assumption that both a zoonotic and lab origin are plausible and thus behave as if *both* happened:
Every precaution we'd strive to put in place if we established a zoonotic origin *should be put in place.* Every precaution we'd strive to put in place if we established a lab origin *should be put in place.*
If we discover an infected intermediary species in a cave somewhere, we should *not* say, "Phew! We can stop worrying about biosecurity! Let's go back to collecting bat viruses and seeing if we can get them to bind to human ACE2!"
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!