You’re absolutely right –

Had I been a reviewer, I’d have put the kabosh on it straight away, using words something like these, though more polished:

“The authors failed to address the potential impact of confounding variables — namely the contribution of Iran, Syria, etc.) — to their data. This is a fatal omission that renders all their conclusions invalid, and the paper should not be published in its present form.”

But if memory serves, this is not the first time the Lancet has published such crapola (this example was debunked soon after it appeared).

So — if the Lancet and its reviewers are unable to distinguish good science from bad, or the journal deliberately publishes papers for political impact rather than on the basis of scientific merit, why should we regard any article published in it, be it about Iraq or some purely medical matter, to be credible, much less authoritative?

Alas, this is just another example of politicizing science . . .

(And, Claudia, I continue to be outraged that you weren’t awarded a Pulitzer for your Oil for Food work.)

Brian