Horton [Lancet editor] responding to push against paywalls by arguing journals 'stand for something'

https://twitter.com/user/status/1037274786206965765


https://twitter.com/user/status/1037273353478795264


https://twitter.com/user/status/1037275542725304322


re "defend the rights of the communities they serve" - yeah, and that community certainly doesn't include patients.

 

Horton has long been of the view that medical journals can and should push political views - according to the whims of the editor...

The Lancet's history on the Israel/Palestinian conflict has been interesting...

A view on this:
http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/...aganda-platform-was-turned-around/2017/10/02/

 

.....

 

Horton makes the best advertisement for his own abolition.
What on earth does he mean by defending the rights of the community they serve
- keeping everything chummy in the old boys' club?
The sooner he goes the better.

 

Horton's legacy, if he goes (but he won't)...and we are as ever, still at risk from Horton's support of the indefensible.......with FII and even M by P being resuscitated.......

"Professor Sir Roy Meadow
Horton published an article in 2005 supporting Professor Sir Roy Meadow who had been charged with serious professional misconduct by the GMC for giving erroneous and seriously misleading evidence in the Sally Clark trial. This was especially controversial as the article appeared whilst the GMC proceedings were still under away and was published on the first day of Meadow's defence. The article "incensed" Clark, a solicitor who had been the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice. With the support of erroneous statistical (and other) evidence from Meadow the prosecution wrongly convicted her of murder and she spent over three years in prison before her successful second appeal.[25][26]

Her husband wrote a rebuttal letter to The Lancet in order to correct Horton's 'many inaccuracies and one-sided opinions' and to prevent them prejudicing independent observers. Dr James Le Fanu, medical practitioner and writer, also wrote to The Lancet in the same issue and described Horton's words as 'mischief'.[27] The Clark family issued a statement addressing and countering with established fact each of the points making up Horton's biased support of Meadow.[28]...."

 

High ideals. Just not for The Lancet nor Richard Horton unfortunately. How can these people so brazenly advocate what they so self-servingly ride roughshod over themselves?

 

Hmmm ... The Lancet influenced by politics. Why does that not surprise me these days, profoundly saddening though it is. Makes you wonder if it is little more than a puppet in some areas.