The then BMJ Editor Dr Martin Ware withdrew a false report. I was previously involved in making both BMJ and Lancet withdraw published reports. I SUGGEST ONE NOVEL PRINCIPLE FOR ADOPTION BY EDITORS
If Lancet is not happy about BMJ’s viewpoint on Statins and there have been calls “for retraction of two BMJ articles that disputed the use of statins in low risk people” why was my call for a retraction of a Sickle Cell Trait article that had no laboratory results but only the word of the patient as evidence of Sickle Cell Trait not heeded? Was it because I implied that the reviewer of the article knew little about sickle cell trait? Just as Lisa Blakemore felt very strongly about childhood vaccines so do I about Sickle Cell Trait misinformation in a reputable journal like The Lancet which refused to publish my protest letter that demanded retraction of a dangerously flawed paper exactly as I presented it.
To Lisa Blakemore the “debate on childhood vaccine adverse reactions” that some people want to curtail requires the same principle of “Fiona’s current thinking”. Was it Mr Poor Science that caused the problem or a human being? Probity involves human beings, not something called “Science”, which leads me to another principle. Now, come on, why do we give the impression that something called “poor science” is responsible for spreading misinformation? And when did “science” become “self-correcting”? Are we afraid to say it is scientists, not science, who need blaming for defects? And scientists, not science that have to do the “self-correcting”? Have we forgotten the BMJ article entitled “Journal agrees to retract paper after university found study was never done”?. But science should be self-correcting when there is open access to the data”. In his otherwise impressive invited Editorial Professor Harlan M Krumholz of Yale School of Medicine makes the following statement: “Some people fear that data sharing could produce poor science that spreads misinformation. Our editorial giants (BMJ & Lancet) clearly disagree on matters of detail relating to Statins so I am not going to wade into the “who found what?” questions when principles that have not been explored stare us in the face.ĭr Fiona Godlee was right to highlight the principle about the need to continue asking questions in a scientific debate when she said “who should decide when such questions are too dangerous to ask? Certainly not those who have a vested interest in the debate being shut down.” Which leads me to something else that worries me, namely the general reluctance to call a spade a spade in scientific debate. Its Science Editor states “The Lancet argued that thousands of people had been misled into stopping their medication after two articles appeared in the BMJ questioning their use and warning of side effects”.
Sickle Cell Trait: As with Statins, When Leading Editors Disagree Please Give Principles Same Weight As Detailsĭr Fiona Godlee’s Editorial is the basis of a Front Page Headline in the Daily Telegraph “‘ End statins controversy’ with government review”.