JAMA recently published an explosive article by @RitaRubin suggesting that the True Health Initiative engaged in unethical tactics to quash meta-studies exonerating red meat. I now question some of the claims in this @JAMA_current article. Thread.
http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.21441 …
-
Show this thread
-
The JAMA article states or implies that THI 1) Flooded the inbox of Annals editor-in-chief Christine Laine with thousands of "bot" emails, 2) Was "vitriolic" in its correspondence with Annals, 3) Requested "pre-emptive retraction" of the red meat papers, 4) Broke an embargo.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likesShow this thread -
I began to question these claims after I got my hands on the "pre-emptive retraction" request letter from THI. It does in fact request "pre-emptive retraction" of the red meat papers, but to my surprise it was polite and respectful, not "vitriolic". https://www.truehealthinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Annals-letter-9-30-19.pdf …
2 replies 1 retweet 11 likesShow this thread -
So the "pre-emptive retraction" claim is clearly true. Yet the JAMA article does not adequately support the other 3 claims. I reached out to
@RitaRubin and Laine for clarification/evidence via two channels each, gave it a week, but did not hear back.1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Let's consider each of the remaining 3 claims. First, THI flooded Laine's inbox with thousands of bot emails. The article implies that THI was responsible but doesn’t state it explicitly or provide evidence.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
I asked
@DrDavidKatz, president of THI, about this. He denies that THI sent these emails, and is unaware of any THI member having done so. Until Rubin or Laine produce evidence that THI was involved, I find this claim hard to believe.1 reply 1 retweet 7 likesShow this thread -
Second, correspondence from THI was "vitriolic". Again, the JAMA article does not include quotes or any other supporting evidence for this claim. Katz sent two pieces of correspondence from THI to Annals and both were polite. https://www.truehealthinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Annals-letter-9-30-19.pdf …
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread
Vitriol is perhaps a subjective term, but Katz's own articles were belittling, patronizing, dismissive, and rude at the very least imo
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.