Israel Matzav: Medical journal publishes two small responses to Gaza smear

Wednesday, August 06, 2014

Medical journal publishes two small responses to Gaza smear

In a previous post, I discussed the Lancet's refusal to publish responses to the smear job that they did on the IDF in their last issue. They have now published two responses. But one of them is from two American doctors and the other is a highly censored version of a letter written by an Israeli doctor.

Only after a tedious and protracted back-and-forth did they publish a letter online, written by two Americans, Jeremy M. Levin and Ron Cohen, which critiqued the pseudo-scientific piece which attacked Israel and amounted to a series of Blood Libels against the Jewish state.

The Lancet also published a much shortened version of another Israeli physician’s article here. This physician, Dr. Tamir Wolf, has launched a petition for the dismissal of the Editor, Richard Horton, at The Lancet. Dr. Wolf notes that The Lancet should never have published propaganda as science. She notes that:

“Elsevier has stated that the responsibility for the decision to accept the open letter by Manduca et al rests with the Editor-in- Chief, Mr. Richard Horton. We fully agree. Richard Horton, the Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, has a long and public history of anti-Israeli views and activism on behalf of various Palestinian causes (see http://honestreporting.com/the-lancets-latest-abuse-of-medicine-for-political-ends). He is, of course, entitled to his political opinions. What is not acceptable is the hijacking of a prestigious medical journal in advancement of a personal political agenda.”

Wolf views the Manduca piece as “defamatory” and suggests that scientists and physicians might “cancel their subscriptions,” (withdraw) as reviewers and editorialists; (boycott) any future submissions to the journal; (cancel) personal subscriptions; and (engage) the media. Wolf ends this way:

‘There is sufficient evidence that Mr. Horton has abused his position as Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet to advance his own political agenda. These actions are not commensurate with the ethics claimed by Elsevier and The Lancet and have severely tarnished the reputation of the journal. “

I am glad to see the Levin-Cohen letter online at The Lancet. I am saddened by how many other good letters, written by Israeli doctors who are on site, were either rejected or shortened.

The Lancet would certainly not have only published a rebuttal article. Oh no. The Lancet has also published letters which support the Manduca article.

As a psychologist, I must first note that first impressions usually last, that corrections or rebuttals do not carry the same weight. Levin-Cohen are second, second to Manduca’s Big Lies. In fact, the Lancet itself lists Manduca’s article as their “most often read” piece.