Thread

Political Activism in Scientific Journals The Lancet needs to explain why, on the eve of Brazil’s elections, it published a report framed in such a one-sided manner. The article praises achievements attributed to Lula and portrays a potential victory by Flávio Bolsonaro as a threat to the SUS, without providing adequate balance, complete sourcing, or the candidate’s proposals. Was Flávio’s campaign contacted? Were his positions presented in full? Political predictions are not scientific evidence. Academic credentials do not turn opinions into facts. And a hypothesis is not proof: attributing pandemic deaths to specific causes requires method, transparency, and independent investigation. Nor is it acceptable to assess Brazil’s response to the pandemic while ignoring vaccination, the distribution of approximately 500 million doses by May 2022, and the country’s participation in international pandemic negotiations. The same standard should apply to public-private partnerships: if they are portrayed as a threat when associated with Flávio but accepted under governments of a different political orientation, the report needs to explain that distinction. My administration should be scrutinized. Lula’s should be as well. Every government should be held to the same standard. But scrutiny must not be replaced by editorial activism. The Lancet should distinguish facts, interpretations, and political judgments; provide meaningful balance; and link claims to verifiable sources. By publishing an article with this framing during the electoral period, it compromises its scientific credibility. Read the report: www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/...