The Lancet heavily redact their response to our subject access request for internal correspondence relating to rejection of our letter about Pfizer study
The Lancet heavily redact their response to our subject access request for internal correspondence relating to rejection of our letter about Pfizer study
What have they got to hide?
There has been a remarkable development to the story previously reported here:
Following that fiasco, I submitted a subject access information request to Elsevier (who publish The Lancet) asking for all internal correspondence between editors and reviewers relating to the submission (and ultimate rejection) of our letter.
After a lengthy delay I received the response today. First their cover letter:
And the very lengthy response (but massively redacted - by them). Here:
It is remarkable that most of the details are redacted even though it clearly is not done solely for the legitimate protection of the names of third parties. It is clear that I was being discussed in a negative light as they were referring to me as 'an ongoing issue'. It is also clear that they only reached out after I publicised their initial delayed rejection letter on twitter (they were getting a lot of heat as a result of that).
It is disturbing to realise how much effort was spent in an attempt to ensure that an obviously flawed study promoting the Pfizer vaccine was not challenged.
Despite most of it being redacted there are still some alarming unredacted highlights (imagine what the unredacted stuff says about us!) First they seem to reluctantly concede that I have a legitimate academic appointment:
In the following they mention ‘helpful background on Fenton’. Did they try to dig up dirt on me on their own or did the 77th brigade furnish them with my dossier?
They are worried about the close proximity of vaccine misinformation sources!
Next, they accuse me and (most likely) Martin Neil of retweeting ‘anti-vaxx posts on Twitter’. I’d be interested to know precisely who they are referring to and what posts:
They also refer to ‘holding off further email’ suggesting their offer to consider the letter was not genuine:
I am not happy about the scale of the redactions in the Elsevier response. If the Lancet editors were not making disparaging comments about me and colleagues, then there should be no reason to redact them. What do they have to hide?
The redactions suggest Elsevier have not acted in good faith, and neither have they acted in the spirit of FOIA.
Hence, I have informed Elsevier that if they are unable to provide a proper and full response with most of these comments unredacted, I will no choice but to report them to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
This is not the first disgraceful episode in the recent history of the Lancet where, under Richard Horton’s leadership, clearly flawed papers promoting the ‘official narrative’ on covid have been published. Remember LancetGate when they published a fraudulent study that effectively stopped the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat covid patients. At least that paper was eventually retracted. In this case, rather than even allow a proper response to a flawed study, they have instead attacked their critics, accusing them of being spreaders of misinformation and ‘anti-vaxxers’.
It is worth noting that (as shown here), The Lancet is by no means the only major academic journal routinely rejecting any articles/letters that in any way question the accuracy of studies claiming vaccine effectiveness or safety. It is now fair to conclude that not a single major peer-reviewed study claiming vaccine effectiveness and/or safety can be trusted to be valid.
Update: 15 March 2023: The Epoch Times has published an extensive article based on this story. Here is a pdf of the article:
The mere fact that they use the term "anti-vaxx" is a clear indication that they are compromised. No credible scientific resource would use such a term, even in camera.
"The Lancet" in name only, trading on its once-illustrious reputation for accuracy and respectability.
Now a very blunt instrument indeed.