The Lancet Study by AstraZeneca Team Not Science

Even reputable science journals like The Lancet are now publishing research that has serious conflict of interest and cannot be considered independent, reliable science. An example of this was seen recently when the journal published a study on the risk of blood clots associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine against COVID 19.

The study titled “Very rare thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after second AZD1222 dose: a global safety database analysis” was published in The Lancet on July 27.

The Lancet study
Image @ Ernest Dempsey

The Lancet Study

The study had a number of weaknesses, or limitations, as acknowledged in the paper, notably the medical history of subjects and other medications affecting the health situation of the subjects.

As common in post-market reporting, limited information was provided in many cases, including medical history and concomitant medication.

It is worth noting that the study was included in the Correspondence section of The Lancet, which is just like the Letters to the Editor page of a regular paper or magazine. However, it was cited by establishment-leaning information sources like the World Socialist Website to imply the AstraZeneca vaccine is effective and safe. The title of their story “Studies confirm safety of AstraZeneca and other COVID vaccines against threat of blood-clotting disorders” make it sound like a standard peer-reviewed study in a science journal.

Conflict of Interest

The most concerning part of the so-called study is that it is entirely authored by an AstraZeneca as all eight authors of the publication are employees of AstraZeneca. This is disclosed toward the end of the article in the journal.

We are employees of AstraZeneca and might have stock or options, or both.

The conflict of interest in such a case is beyond acceptable. The mainstream media sources that cite publications like these are practically lying to people by misleading them into believing that such publications define science when the fact is the opposite – no unverified and replicated findings of a source that has direct financial ties with the maker of the product under study can be or should be called science.