The Lancet

From Wikispooks
(Redirected from Lancet)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Group.png The Lancet   Facebook WebsiteRdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png
The lancet.png
FounderThomas Wakley
Top medical journal which in 2020 was used to promote the COVID-19 Official narrative.

The Lancet is a peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is the world's highest-impact general medical journal.[1][2] It was founded in England in 1823.[3] The journal has been owned by Elsevier since 1991, and its editor-in-chief since 1995 is Richard Horton.[4]

In Autumn 2020 its March statement terming proponents of the non-natural origin of Sars-Cov2 as "conspiracy theorists" was revealed to have been prepared by Peter Daszak, a funder of gain of function research on bat coronaviruses. In 2020, The Lancet also published a faked paper which claimed that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective and dangerous when used to treat Covid-19.


In September The Lancet made Peter Daszak the lead investigator of its "inquiry" into the origins of the pandemic.[5]

We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin

In March 2020, The Lancet published a statement by Peter Daszak, co-authored by 26 others[6] which noted that "The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin."[7] Although the original author was not mentioned, by November 2020 emails had emerged onto the internet that revealed that Daszak had written it an solicited the 26 co-signers.[8]

Hydroxychloroquine hit piece

In May 2020 The Lancet published a paper on the dangers of Hydroxychloroquine. This was later withdrawn.[9]

Telegraph investigation

In September 2021, an investigation from The Telegraph revealed that 26 out of 27 co-authors had links to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[10]

Water fluoridation

Full article: Water/Fluoridation

In 2014, The Lancet published a paper which mentioned that "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations."[11].

2006 Lancet Iraq study

The Lancet published two peer-reviewed studies on the effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation on the Iraqi mortality rate.

The first survey[12] published on 29 October 2004, estimated 98,000 excess Iraqi deaths (with a range of 8,000 to 194,000, using a 95% confidence interval (CI)) from the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq to that time, or about 50% higher than the death rate prior to the invasion. The authors described this as a conservative estimate, because it excluded the extreme statistical outlier data from Fallujah. If the Fallujah cluster were included, the mortality estimate would increase to 150% over pre-invasion rates (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.2).

The second survey[13][14] published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population, through the end of June 2006. The new study applied similar methods and involved surveys between 20 May and 10 July 2006.[15] More households were surveyed, allowing for a 95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636 excess Iraqi deaths. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were due to violence. 31% (186,318) of those were attributed to the US-led Coalition, 24% (144,246) to others, and 46% (276,472) unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56% or 336,575), car bomb (13% or 78,133), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13% or 78,133), accident (2% or 12,020), and unknown (2%).

Gates-funded Prize

In 2019, 'activist editor' Richard Horton received a $100,000 "Prize" from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), for his "lifetime achievement". IHME is almost 100% funded by the Gates Foundation. The Lancet publishes most if IHME's studies, which most other researchers then look for to health metrics.

Patrick Gerland, a demographer in the United Nations Population Division said the Lancet's peer-review process put impossibly short deadlines on extremely complex IHME studies. "At the end of the day the peer-review process pretends to be something its not".[16] The Lancet publishes 5000-page appendices that are labelled as peer-reviewed, despite the impossibility of they having been properly reviewed. The magazine also allows IHME to publish studies with several hundred authors, diluting standard scientific authorship requirements[17], while allowing "scientists" to claim they have been published in the prestigious The Lancet.


Related Quotation

Big pharma“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”Richard Horton2015
Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.


  2. {
  6. Charles Calisher, Dennis Carroll, Rita Colwell, Ronald B. Corley, Christian Drosten, Luis Enjuanes, Jeremy Farrar, Hume Field, Josie Golding, Alexander Gorbalenya, Bart Haagmans, James M. Hughes, William B. Karesh, Gerald T. Keusch, Sai Kit Lam, Juan Lubroth, John S. Mackenzie, Larry Madoff, Jonna Mazet, Peter Palese, Stanley Perlman, Leo Poon, Bernard Roizman, Linda Saif, Kanta Subbarao and Mike Turner
  13. |a
  16. Tim Schwab, The Gates Problem, page 276-277