The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on August 9th, 2017 at 06:22 am
Based on the following quote (from this article) I thought it fair enough to include Columbia University health professor Richard Garfield in a short list of Lancet critics:
“I’m shocked by the levels they (the investigators) reached,” said Garfield. “Common sense, gut level, says it is hard to believe it could be this high. We don’t know how many have died, we just know it’s a lot. … Right now, the only other option is to stay in the dark.”
Turns out, however, that Garfield is a full-blown Lancet fancier:
“I loved when President Bush said ‘their methodology has been pretty well discredited,’ ” says Richard Garfield, a public health professor at Columbia University who works closely with a number of the authors of the report. “That’s exactly wrong. There is no discrediting of this methodology. I don’t think there’s anyone who’s been involved in mortality research who thinks there’s a better way to do it in unsecured areas. I have never heard of any argument in this field that says there’s a better way to do it.”
My mistake.
