
Lafta had been a child-health official in Saddam Hussein's ministry of health when the ministry was trying to end the international sanctions against Iraq by asserting that many Iraqis were dying from hunger, disease, or cancer caused by spent U.S. depleted-uranium shells remaining from the 1991 Persian Gulf War. In 2000, Lafta authored at least two brief articles contending that U.N. sanctions had caused many deaths by starvation among Iraqi children. In one article, he identified malnutrition as the main contributor to 53 percent of deaths among hospitalized children younger than 2, during a 1997 survey carried out at Saddam Central Teaching Hospital. The article cited no health data from before the sanctions, yet it asserted, ‘We can conclude from results that the most important and widespread underlying cause of the deterioration of child-health standards in Iraq is the long-term impact of the non-humanized economic sanction imposed through United Nations resolutions.’In other words, the Lancet relied for its data upon assertions made by one of Saddam’s apologists, who had previously manipulated information in order to evade UN sanctions, about the alleged effects of the toppling of Saddam. This in a medical journal which hitherto was regarded as utterly authoritative — and which, because it played to the anti-war narrative, was swallowed uncritically by the ‘Bush lied people died’ crowd and was treated as holy writ.
Whatever happened to peer review? Who can take the Lancet seriously ever again?