30712: Deibert (comment) A few thoughts on the Lancet discussion (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Michael Deibert <michaeldeibert@gmail.com>

I find it curious that the supporters of the Athena Kolbe/Royce Hutson study
appear in such awe of the supposed infallibility of The Lancet as an
unchallengeable repository of information.

The Lancet, far from being simply the "respected medical journal" that it's
supporters would have us believe, has in fact been caught up in scandals
involving the highly questionable research methods of some of its
contributors in the past.

In February 1998, the Lancet published a paper by a group of surgeons
claiming that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine was linked with autism.
This prompted a major health scare in Britain at the time until
investigative journalist Brian Deer, in a documentary for the UK's Channel
4, revealed the claims to be a total lie and the lead surgeon himself to
have a substantial financial stake in the propagation the story. This can be
read about it detail here:
*

**http://briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm*<http://briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm>

In October 2005, the Lancet published claims supposedly based on scientific
evidence that the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) would
reduce the incidence of mouth cancer. The data for this study also turned
out to be totally fabricated. That can be read about here:
*

**http://www.fhi.no/eway/default.aspx?pid=238&trg=MainLeft_5895&MainArea_5811=5895:0:15,2816:1:0:0:::0:0&MainLeft_5895=5825:56662::1:5896:4:::0:0
*<http://www.fhi.no/eway/default.aspx?pid=238&trg=MainLeft_5895&MainArea_5811=5895:0:15,2816:1:0:0:::0:0&MainLeft_5895=5825:56662::1:5896:4:::0:0>

As for the Lancet and Haiti: Though the concentration on Athena Kolbe's
links with Jean-Bertrand Aristide, while valid given that she deliberately
deceived the public by jettisoning the former nom-de-plume (Lyn Duff) she
used when writing frothing pro-Aristide tracts, is nevertheless to some
degree deflecting attention from the flaws of the Lancet's follow-up process
itself.

Putting aside that the final official inquiry into Kolbe and Hutson's
research was conducted by the authors' home institution, Wayne State
University, and not an independent third party, the inquiry itself consisted
merely of auditing 100 questionnaires and observing whether the handwritten
records corresponded with the project's computerized database. As the survey
allegedly consisted of sampling, 1260 households, this represents oversight
on only 7% of the study itself.
I don't believe that whether the handwritten records corresponded with the
project's computerized database was ever the source of worry for those of us
who were concerned about the study's credibility, but rather the neutrality
and transparency of those conducting it.

The Lancet study states the following: "A research team visited each
location up to four times until an adult (18 years old or older) household
member was located. The research teams consisted of at least two people. An
attempt was made to include at least one female researcher with each team,
although this was not possible on some occasions…Interviewers were
university graduates who spoke fluent Haitian Kreyol. All but one of the
interviewers was Haitian. None of those chosen to be research team members
were politically active beyond voting in elections."

Given the standard of deception set by the authors in concealing the
long-standing links Athena Kolbe had to Mr. Aristide, a political actor
whose partisans have been credibly accused by of being enthusiastic
participants in the culture of rape that has characterized various armed
groups in Haiti since at least the 1990s, I think it is only natural that a
question mark would hang over the neutrality, transparency and indeed
honesty of the interview process itself. Given that the authors went so far
as to footnote Ms. Kolbe's work under another name as a reference for the
study (twice), I'm sorry, but I am not convinced that everything in the
endeavor was above board, nor does the Lancet seem to be interested in truly
getting to the bottom of what might be yet another embarrassment.

For my part, I cannot help but contrast the Lancet's statements with my own
experiences in Haiti since 1997, where, despite the gentleness and decency
of the majority of Haitians I met, Haiti's hyper-macho gunman political
culture - a culture refined by but  by no means solely the creation of Mr.
Aristide's political party - facilitated sexual abuse of women in excesses
that became even more ghastly and brutal. If you speak Kreyol, just ask the
residents of St. Marc,

I also cannot help but contrast the claims of the Lancet authors in their
survey and their relatively affluent foreign supporters that no rapes or
murders committed by Fanmi Lavalas partisans with the July 2005 petition by
four of Haiti's most politically progressive organizations: the Groupe
d'Appui aux Rapatries et Refugies (GARR), the Plateforme haïtienne de
Plaidoyer pour un Développement Alternatif (PAPDA), Solidarité des Femmes
Haïtiennes (SOFA) and Centre National et International de Documentation et
d'Information de la Femme en Haïti (EnfoFanm). Their statement cited the
July 2005 murder of Haitian journalist Jacques Roche, a May 2005 attack on a
Port-au-Prince marketplace that killed seven people and saw a large part of
the market, which served the capital's poor, burned to ashes and what they
charged was a campaign of rape by gangs supportive of the exiled president
in the capital's slums in a call for Mr. Aristide to be judged for what they
claimed were his crimes against the Haitian people.

Of course, GARR, PAPDA, SOFA and EnfoFanm are just Haitian organizations,
administered and run by Haitians actually on the ground in Haiti, who over
years of constant threats and intimidation by the country's rancid political
class have pushed for progressive change and a more humane, decent country.

What would people like that know about human rights.

MD