I’ve got a new article just out in The Conversation. Here’s the short version:
- The Lancet publishes a false graph
- The problems of the graph are exposed, several even in letters to the Lancet.
- The Lancet just leaves the graph up.
- A Washington Post reporter stumbles onto the false graph, thinks it’s cool and reprints it.
- I tell the reporter that he just published a false graph
- The reporter does a mea culpa and pulls the graph down
- I write up this sequence of events for The Conversation
- The Conversation sends it to the Lancet
- The Lancet declines to comment and leaves the false graph up
- The Conversation publishes the piece
- Someone else sees and believes in the graph?