This Weblog Is "Not Suitable For Dissemination By means of The Internet"

The editors of the prestigious European Heart Journal have determined that this website, or at least one latest submit, “is “not ideal for dissemination through the internet.”

I beg to differ.

In an EHJ editorial, Is the panic about beta-blockers in perioperative care justified?, the authors, the editors of the journal, led by editor-in-chief Thomas Lüscher, repeatedly criticize a submit I wrote a few weeks ago with an intentionally provocative headline, “Medication Or Mass Murder? Guideline Primarily based on Discredited Analysis Might Have Caused 800,000 Deaths In Europe Above The Final 5 Years.”

Their editorial starts:

Controversial problems require correct discussion, the two in science and clinical medication. Occasionally the interpretation of the offered data is complicated and not suitable for dissemination by way of the net.one

That reference at the finish refers to my earlier report. They go on to think about the unfavorable results of my blog, writing that the “the feasible consequences… grew virtually exponentially” right after it was published. But they never ever spell out what individuals consequences actually were.

The exact same editors also unpublished (retracted? withdrew? disappeared?) an EHJ post by Cole and Francis that had been the topic of my site post. That article talked about the feasible damage induced by medical professionals in Europe following recommendations that have been partly based on discredited studies from the disgraced Dutch researcher Don Poldermans.  The new EHJ editorial contains a comprehensive rebuttal of the Cole and Francis article. The astonishing thing right here is that  they have published a substantial response to the Cole and Francis write-up, but simply because the authentic post has been withdrawn it is, rather decidedly, a one particular-sided debate.  EHJ readers are entirely unable to make any independent judgement for themselves about this problem.

This is constant with the paternalistic tone of the editorial. The editors adopt the tone of fathers who know greatest, telling their kids what they can read through and what they should believe and feel. Of program, they are very confident that they are performing this for the standard good: the editorial office, they publish, was “aware of its obligation and reacted accordingly.”

But since they really do not spell out the negative consequences of the write-up it is impossible to assess the dangers versus the rewards of publication. Could it be that the only actual consequences have been that they have been embarrassed by an inconvenient or controversial viewpoint?

And, I wonder, exactly where was their decisive action when this affair had its actual origins, a number of years in the past when the Poldermans scandal 1st emerged? The EHJ editors withdrew the Cole and Francis report only hours following it 1st appeared. But when the Poldermans affair 1st broke there was no comparable instant action. It would look that they are a lot more concerned by poor PR than by poor science or even possibly dangerous medication.

I will not now evaluation all the  complicated concerns involved in this controversy. Like others I will be interested to read through the revised edition of the Cole and Francis post, if it is ever published. But for now I stand by my earlier post, which initially ended with this explanation for its provocative title:

…there are very good reasons to think that this kind of provocation is essential. There is, it has now turn into clear, a general lack of concern and response to proof of scientific fraud and misconduct. Journal editors, deans, division chairs, and others seem much more concerned with guarding the track record of their respective institutions than aggressively upholding the integrity of science and investigation. Of program, defending science and keeping the track record of an institution need to not be opposing alternatives. But considering that they are, possibly a little provocation is in order.

A single last note, for connoisseurs of scandal. It seems from the editorial that the EHJ editor-in-chiefhas actually apologized to Poldermans for the harsh criticism his research, and the ESC tips derived from that study, acquired in the disappeared Cole and Francis post:

…the Editor-in-Chief informed the writer of 1 of the beta-blocker trials, who was heavily criticized in the post, that the European Heart Journal does not support the conclusions of this inadvertently published function.

Censorship (Photograph credit: IsaacMao)

This Weblog Is "Not Suitable For Dissemination By means of The Internet"