Science News aggregator sort of 'blows up' a thing or two.

[Maxmars]

The founder of Science 2.0 (the article source) has offered some opinions that 
speak to the state of healthcare today.

I can only infer if his opinion has special value.
But the narrative is interesting...and I think some of us might not
agree completely, or even partially, with what he says...

Lancet Is Doing For MAHA On Food What They Did For Wakefield On Vaccines

Here are some salient notes:

The Lancet, which championed both the 'vaccines cause autism' and the 'Frankenfood' movement, is now promoting the same bad epidemiology in their claims about ultra-processed food.

And yet, every mention of the Lancet I can muster seems to place them among the premier 
medical journals... 

The Lancet - no journalists except Guardian and New York Times consider them scientifically reliable.

Yikes...

The world of Medical Journal publishing is about prestige... this is an incoming turd... 

However, the anti-science left and the anti-science right, now under the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) umbrella, are ready to believe anything if it aligns with their Science Is A Vast Corporate Conspiracy narrative.

OK... OK... you "hate" any conspiracy linked to "science world."  Hateful point made...  virtue signaled.

...

It's an editorial rant... by someone who speaks to an audience of thousands...

How wrong could he possibly be?  How right?

[FlyersFan]

Lancet.   They are the yahoos who believe Hamas and put out fake massively inflated death toll numbers in Gaza.    yeah.   Totally nonreliable source of information.

[ANNEE]

Oops! Mistakes can be made.

The Lancet was criticised after it published a paper in 1998 in which the authors suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism spectrum disorder. In February 2004, The Lancet published a statement by 10 of the paper's 13 coauthors repudiating the possibility that MMR could cause autism. Editor-in-chief, Richard Horton went on the record to say the paper had "fatal conflicts of interest" that the study's lead author, Andrew Wakefield, had not declared to The Lancet. The journal completely retracted the paper on 2 February 2010, after Wakefield was found to have acted unethically in conducting the research.


Maybe this should go in the Autism thread.

[Maxmars]

Lancet.   They are the yahoos who believe Hamas and put out fake massively inflated death toll numbers in Gaza.    yeah.   Totally nonreliable source of information.

But... Is this not the "legendary" lancet?

Oft-quoted, source of "informative news?"
Is it not exactly the same as ANY other source?
What?  A "political" reason to hate the information?  How useful.
But not essentially something I can distinguish as different fro any other source.

The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal, founded in England in 1823. 

The editorial is actually referring to what the Lancet has become under marketing leadership.

A social engineering monument... resting on the prestige of completely disconnected scientists...
who get brownie points for "participating" in the facade...

I don't wish anyone to think they are failing because of "politics"...
their sociopolitical focus is just one more ".. and another thing..."

I think transient "Politics" is just the vehicle of their own destruction.

When a "prestigious" "science" journal descends into this behavior -
it has to mean something "not science" is in the mix.

[argentus]

I do and have done a lot of research, particularly during the emerging Covid years.    The following is my opinion:   I have found the Lancet to be solid reporting and studies, utilizing the scientific method and providing full data of studies, methodologies and conclusions.   It's likely there are views espoused by the Lancet which have some hyperbole or editorial content, but I've not seen any.   Of course, my M.O. is to ask a question, track down sources, then read their studies and form my own opinions.  

The conclusions of a study formed by the scientific method are, in essence, a very informed and well, researched opinion.   Yes, those opinions can be countered by other studies.   Far too often, people cherry-pick portions of vetted medical reports to support their own confirmation bias.   This is the antithesis of science and the scientific method;  the scientific method endorses no politics or political views.

[FlyersFan]

But... Is this not the "legendary" lancet?

I have no idea if they are 'legendary' or not.
Never heard of them before the war in Gaza.
All I know about them is that they put out fake inflated death numbers
and falsely said that the Hamas death numbers were real.
That gives them no credibility as far as I'm concerned.

[argentus]

Lancet.   They are the yahoos who believe Hamas and put out fake massively inflated death toll numbers in Gaza.    yeah.   Totally nonreliable source of information.

The Lancet letter was not peer-reviewed, but an opinion based upon existing data.   Moreover, it didn't claim higher numbers, but suggested that it was "not implausible", that the total cost of lives could be significantly higher.   Nowhere did they endorse Hamas.   Yahoos?  Really?  Check your convictions for bias.

[Maxmars]

I have no idea if they are 'legendary' or not.
Never heard of them before the war in Gaza.
All I know about them is that they put out fake inflated death numbers
and falsely said that the Hamas death numbers were real.
That gives them no credibility as far as I'm concerned.

It's almost like there are two Lancets...

Kind of curious...

[FlyersFan]

  Nowhere did they endorse Hamas.   Yahoos?  Really?  Check your convictions for bias.

I didn't say they endorsed Hamas.
They basically said Hamas didn't lie.
We know Hamas lied.
They are yahoos.

[Halfswede]

I read something a while back that the peer review process, lack of academic integrity, and poor DoE has led to something like 30% of peer-reviewed journal articles have any real validity. I honestly can't remember who put it out, but it was one of the big medical/scientific bodies. The gist was that pressure to publish and overwhelming personal bias was interfering at all levels. 

I wouldn't consider journal studies a waste of time, but they are incredibly flawed and always funded by someone or something, so you can expect certain quality. Mix that with the well known massive political bias amongst academia and you have a pretty flawed system.