ElementalMom

So I wrote a blog a few days ago about how upsetting it is that the Lancet has formally retracted the Wakefield MMR study, but hasn’t retracted the Hannah TBT, even though I’m pretty sure Hannah does more harm to women and babies every single day than Wakefield ever did.

A commenter and friend, who works in the biomedical industry, suggested that if I was serious, I should write Lancet and tell them so (it’s in the comments, you can read it yourself).

And I thought… hm. What a lovely idea! Yes, we should indeed write some letters. Because what amazing good would it do for the cause of vaginal breech, if Lancet retracted Hannah with as much publicity and
fanfare as they’ve now retracted Wakefield?

So here you go:

Editorial Departments

General editorial enquiries: editorial@lancet.com
Web enquiries: webeditor@lancet.com

The Lancet
Editor: Richard Horton
richard.horton@lancet.com

Deputy Editor: Astrid James
astrid.james@lancet.com

North American Senior Editor: Maja Zecevic
m.zecevic@lancet.com

Let’s see if we can spread a little love. If you do in fact write a letter, please post it on your blogs, and let us all know, so we can crosslink, tweet, and facebook like mad things and maybe drive some attention to this.

Pardon me in advance if this is incoherent and raging. It’s mostly because, well, I’m incoherent and raging currently.

So here’s the deal. The Lancet is going to retract Andrew Wakefield’s study about MMR and autism.

Just think about that for a moment.

I don’t give a wet slap about whether or not you think vaccines have anything to do with autism. Just throw that out of your heads for a minute. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Wakefield’s paper was the worst piece of garbage science you’ve ever seen. I don’t happen to believe that, personally, but go ahead and run with it, for the point of the argument.

The Wakefield study is 12 years old. T-w-e-l-v-e. Do you really, genuinely think, that the Lancet has only published one bullshit paper in twelve years?

OK, how about this? The Hannah Term Breech Trial. This one paper, published in 2000, is the reason that a breech baby is considered an automatic cesarean section. And it’s complete crap. Dr. Marek Glazerman ripped it apart (also in the Lancet), and Hannah herself also published a retraction of sorts which showed that her data was not spot on, but they should go ahead and cut women open anyway.

This particular piece of peer-reviewed dogmeat continues to be cited over, and over, and over again. And gee, you don’t see the Lancet retracting it, do you?

Vaccinations are more profitable than non-vaccinations (and I won’t even go into the profit involved in vaccine damage, because we’re playing along with the Wakefield-is-a-loony side for the purpose of argument).  Cesareans are more profitable than non-cesareans, and I’m not going to go into the profits of cesarean damage here either, I’ve done it elsewhere.

Maybe it’s just that my cynicism is showing, but I’m pretty sure that what we’re seeing here is not any sort of scientific method that Al-Biruni or Roger Bacon would recognize. Oh, that’s right. That’s because they were scientists, and what we’re seeing now is more the purview of economics.

UPDATE: Fraud in medical research publishing? Say it ain’t so.