Thread by @ClaireBerlinski

Does it seem odd to anyone else that the editors of JAMA resigned over this podcast--which caused no medical harm to anyone--forbes.com/sites/brucelee…

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.