Proof: The Lancet is a very corrupt journal
When a scientific paper is deeply flawed, an honest journal either corrects the paper or retracts it. The Lancet does neither. Instead, they ignore the person who pointed out the flaw.
The scientific integrity of The Lancet has now dropped to zero.
Here’s all the evidence you need: “The Lancet has become a laughing stock” which chronicles a timeline of events on how a crystal clear scientific objection that invalidates the result of a very important study was deliberately censored by the journal.
The Lancet is now officially a propaganda journal until proven otherwise.
What do you think they will do now?
I totally agree with Norman Fenton who wrote this article: The Lancet has become a laughing stock.
Check out just the first exchange with the journal where Professor Fenton points out a problem and the journal says that because they never heard back from the author, they are closing their case and thanked him for his input. That is ridiculous. Josefine Gibson should be fired immediately for that. That is not how science is supposed to work. Not even close. This is outrageous. And that’s just for starters. Read the whole article for the rest of the story which is equally outrageous.
In their final rejection of Fenton’s letter, The Lancet gave two reasons for not publishing it:
Fenton used the word “substantial” in the sentence “The Lancet article provided no information about the vaccine’s adverse reactions which we now know are substantial.” The editors said this is misinformation. Are you kidding me?!?! What planet are they living on??? The VAERS reports for the COVID vaccine are more than EVERY OTHER VACCINE COMBINED OVER 30 YEARS. If that is not substantial, I don’t know what is.
They said Sharon Alroy-Preis did declare she worked at the Israeli Ministry of Health so there is no undisclosed conflict of interest. But Fenton’s objection is that she signed a contract with Pfizer not to disclose any adverse safety information without Pfizer’s approval. That legal agreement which affects the integrity of the paper must be disclosed but was NEVER disclosed in the paper and is still not disclosed.
The Lancet has descended into being a laughing stock. They are now the poster child for what is wrong in science today. A deeply flawed paper is not corrected or retracted even after the journal knows about it. Instead, they choose to ignore the person who complained about it and not even publish his letter.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Let me be perfectly clear:
EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD SHOULD BE CONDEMNING THE LANCET NOW, just like I am doing with this post.
IF YOU DO NOT CONDEMN THEM, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM because you are enabling and encouraging the corruption.
We will shortly see, in full public view, just how corrupt mainstream science is today by how many people publicly speak out about this outrageous behavior by one of the world’s top medical journals.
You don’t have to believe me. It’s in a peer-reviewed medical journal! Can you guess which one?
Yup, The Lancet itself admitted that medical journals are corrupt back in 2004:
“Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004 
For more information, see Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies which is another paper published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS Medicine.
It doesn’t get any more clear than this folks.
What will The Lancet do now?
There is no rock that is large enough for them to hide under, but they may try to find one.
If they want to restore their credibility, I am calling for them to fire all the people involved and replace them with editors who are honest scientists. NOW.
If they do not immediately do that, then it is confirmation that the entire organization is corrupt.
Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies:
“Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004.
There may be some confusion ...
There seems to be a 2 min and a 4 min of Dalgleish ... and an 18 min recent interview
Then there is an 18 min multi-doctor video ... that was released a few weeks? ago which I got at the time
Twitter ... Doctors for Patients UK ... scroll down to Jan 17 'Banthebbc' ... working ... 18 min