In part two of our series on the Lancet's descent into ideological activism, we look at the journal's proposal to "transform" global dietary habits and protect the planet from the ravages of animal agriculture. Is there any evidence to justify this campaign against meat production and consumption?
Social media platforms, fringe websites and activist groups are well-known sources of unscientific nonsense. Less discussed is the fact that ideological activism masquerading as research often finds a home in prestigious academic journals. One journal in particular has a long history of publishing such dubious content—The Lancet.
Bad behavior has consequences, except when you're a social media platform. But the number of peer-reviewed articles subsequently retracted raises the question of whether medical journals believe that they, too, are "platforms" without responsibility for what they publish and disseminate.
Now that the paper published in The Lancet, on the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, has been retracted, we need to look at how eminence continues to trump evidence. When we talk about humans and their behavior, everything is political.
Millions of smokers, their families, and public health experts await the FDA's ruling on how they plan to regulate e-cigarettes. If too stringent, the nascent industry will go underground and millions of smokers who switched to vaping will become criminals.