Several days ago I described how the World Bank's Booster Program and Attaran et al both misunderstood an article published by Akhavan, Musgrove, Abrantes, and Gusmao. Since then, the World Bank has corrected the error while Attaran, even though his mistake has been drawn to his attention, has not. Instead, he has accused Akhavan et al of fraud
The bank has always played fast and loose with science. In The Lancet, we revealed how the bank in the 1990s published a scientific paper containing false epidemiological statistics that claimed it reduced malaria in Brazil. The bank's internal documents show statistics different from what it published, suggesting that the falsehood was intentional. And although the bank's error has now been caught, it still has not withdrawn the false scientific paper. If it did so, it would have to admit that at the end of the 1990s, Brazil had more malaria cases than when the bank started its work.
The paper was not published by the World Bank. Two of the authors were employees of the World Bank. This is like saying that the University of Ottawa published Attaran's paper. 
Fortunately for the University of Ottawa, they are not responsible for it -- Attaran is. Akhavan et al's paper did not contain false statistics. Figure 1 in Akhavan showed the correct number for cases of malaria for 1996. And the paper explains that the number for 1996 in table 2 is half of the total number because the program ended half way through the year. The correct numbers, as shown in the paper, demonstrate that there were fewer malaria cases when the program ended in 1996. Attaran's mention of the number of cases at the end of the 90s is misleading. Not only is that years after the program ended, he has cherry picked the peak number in that period and failed to mention the lower figures.
Philip Musgrove is understandably angry at Attaran's smear campaign. His email to Attaran:
You have acquired the distinction of being the most brazen liar I have ever corresponded with. Your piece with Roger Bate in the Examiner first claims that the paper by Akhavan et al. is a Bank publication, when you know quite well it is not. The Bank did not publish that paper; the authors did. Then you repeat the lie that our paper contains false epidemiological statistics, although it has been thoroughly explained to you that that is not the case. You did not reveal any falsehood in your Lancet article because there was none to reveal. And then, without any explanation, you contrast the mistake in the Bank's Booster Program document (about the half-year data for 1996) with our paper, and claim that the difference suggests the intent to mislead. Finally, you cling to the untenable argument that only an actual reduction of malaria cases would constitute success in the Brazilian program, when the appropriate counterfactual assumption, based on more than a decade of previous rapid growth in malaria, is that without the program malaria cases would have continued to increase. And you ignore the fact that our paper's analysis ended with June 1996, so that whatever was true at the end of the 1990s is outside its purview.
Obviously you do not know how to be ashamed, but you should be.
I agree with Musgrove.
Dear readers:
As Mr Lambert correctly writes, following the publication of a paper by myself and 12 colleagues in The Lancet last month, the World Bank corrected errors in its presentation of malaria prevalence data for Brazil. The very fact that the Bank agreed a correction was necessary is the clearest possible validation that its original data were false, as we maintained. This only one of many other errors which the Bank made, and which to date it has not corrected.
The rest of Mr. Lambert's analysis is so selective and distorted with respect to our research and writing that it suggests a vendetta on his part. Rather than publish our point of view in his blog, which is not peer-reviewed and is never fairly edited, readers wishing to learn more about the World Bank's many serious financial, statistical and clinical errors in malaria programs are suggested to read our peer-reviewed article in The Lancet. The article may be downloaded for free (registration required) at www.TheLancet.com.
Professor Amir Attaran
Never fairly edited? I think that is fighting talk here in the blogosphere. Perhaps you can explain what is wrong with the critiscisms that have been put forwards, since the Lancet study you want us to read is exactly what is being critiqued, and many of us do not have the requisite statistical background nor knowledge of malarial eradication programs that would be helpful to our understanding.
Mr Amir Attaran:
"The rest of Mr. Lambert's analysis is so selective and distorted with respect to our research and writing that it suggests a vendetta on his part."
After reading Mr. Lambert's analysis, it appears that it IS selective. He selected the part of your interpretation (of the world bank report) that was CLEARLY erroneous. If there is something wrong with THAT kind of selectivity, then we might as well all fold up the tent and go home.
"Rather than publish our point of view in his blog, which is not peer-reviewed and is never fairly edited," -- Amir Attaran
If you wish to debate Mr. Lambert's analysis, by all means do so, but whether his blog is peer-reviewed (??!!) is irrelevant to an argument of the facts of the case.
"readers wishing to learn more about the World Bank's many serious financial, statistical and clinical errors in malaria programs are suggested to read our peer-reviewed article in The Lancet." -- Amir Attaran
Mr. Lambert was very focused in his criticisms. You should address the points that he has brought up rather than trying to divert the conversation.
Specifically:
You have NOT addressed Mr. Lambert's point:
"Reference 19 is a 1999 paper by Akhavan et al. Figure 1, which I've reproduced below, shows the number of cases of malaria each year. I added the red line to make it perfectly clear that it shows that the number of cases in 1996 was about 440,000, not 220,000 as shown in Attaran's figure 1. Akhavan, Roll Back Malaria and the Brazilian Government all give about the same number for malaria cases in 1996. Indeed, on page 92 the World Bank's Booster Program also gives the same number -- it's only given incorrectly in the passage Attaran quotes."
Your bar graph (footnote 19) showing "Numbers of cases according to World Bank's data" clearly uses an incorrect number for 1996 (when the CORRECT number WAS indeed to be found in the World Bank's own reports, as Mr. Lambert indicated above).
Not only that, the following statement by you and your co-authors DOES seem to imply impropriety (or at least a motive for it) by those at the World bank: "Note that in final year of the Bank's project (1996), when pressure would have built to show success, the Bank claims sudden drop in malaria cases, which is not corroborated by other data sources."
PS: If I want to learn about World bank statistical errors (and others' errors of intepretation of those statistical errors), I am convinced from this experience that Mr. Lambert's blog is probably as good a place as any to do so.
Are we defending the World Bank now? Right or wrong about this issue, I don't care. I would never step up to give one word of support to whatever chief neo-con Paul Wolfowitz, head of the World Bank, has to do or say. I admit severe bias on this. F^%$ Paul Wolfowitz and everything he does or says or tries to implement through his minions at the World Bank.
So Mr Attaran, are you going to correct your grotesque errors, or continue to cloud the water?
"Are we defending the World Bank now? Right or wrong about this issue, I don't care. I would never step up to give one word of support to whatever chief neo-con Paul Wolfowitz, head of the World Bank, has to do or say."
The report in question was published well before Wolfowitz had any involvmeent with the World Bank and deals with a program that ended in 1996 almost a DECADE before wolfowitz's appointment.
"Are we defending the World Bank now?"
This is not an issue of defending anyone -- or attacking anyone, as Mr. Attaran implies with his "vendetta statement".
To suggest as much shows a complete lack of appreciation for the "importance of getting the facts straight."
"The rest of Mr. Lambert's analysis is so selective and distorted with respect to our research and writing that it suggests a vendetta on his part"
Interesting. I was never able to figure out how Dr. Lambert comes to many of his conclusions with respect to malarial infection and its' deceased and suffering population.
I don't believe that a little bit more research into long protein chains, a tad of sodium voltage-gated ion channel reading, a little more history on vector control methods and established resistances would hurt any.(any=author?) Don't forget the integral cytochromes n metabolics ;)
I do find it a bit odd that Dr. Lambert blogs much about malaria, (more specifically DDT and it's abilities as an anti-vector) yet has never presented any specifics to me or any other interested readers on the actual effects.
Personally, I always want to know "how". The more important genes and allelles have names. Also importantly they have transport mechanisms which certainly haven't been identified in this blog as of yet. What do we see instead?
DDT Bingo?
Personally, I don't quite get it.
"Personally, I don't quite get it."
That has been apparent for some time.
Ian, I guess I left myself open for that one :)
Did you notice the discrepancy of the numbers for IRS in the recently? posted (here) Eritrea paper? (by numbers I mean kg's of insecticide vs. numbers of houses sprayed, vs. standard requirements for surfaces being sprayed for each insecticide) The numbers don't add up, I imagine a lot could be due to the quality of data gathering, and am also thinking that IRS was mainly reserved for "high season". That would make perfect sense especially given the limitations of the funding.
However, the numbers presented to us seem inconsistent unless the indoor surface area of the housing fluctuated rapidly year-to-year. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this?
Ian, did you notice that cs avoids commenting on the topic of this post?
Tim, although the question wasn't directed to me, (and I don't mean to answer for Ian) you're certainly right that my previous post was off-topic in this thread, and I must admit to not reading the entire post and included links before posting, and to be quite honest, I still haven't. (but know that I should before commenting or being critical, etc...)(also, it's rather hypocritical of me to be usually be posting in vague terms, and then asking for specifics :)
I digress, at the time of my previous posting I came here and spouted off a bit. I usually try to refrain from posting messages on blogs on the internet, but I often get drunk, and I get get goofy, and well, you know... :)
(and am a little drunk tonight as well: hey, it's a friday)
Regardless, I've noticed that your blog has many readers, and have seen links to your (DDT) blog articles from Scientific American's website among others, and currently your blog is in a 'webring'-type org entitling itself as: "Science Blogs".
I suppose my complaint/rant is merely that (and I'm being a bit vague here) since malaria is such a large problem,
it would be much more refreshing if someone with such a large readership were to convey to the readers the complexities and immensity of the problem, rather than focusing on "gotchas" directed towards people attempting to espouse the problem (for political reasons or otherwise) who might (or might not) make errors in their writing. (again, this doesn't really pertain to this thread, more so to the majority of some of your earlier DDT posts)
IMHO, I feel that research into specific vector resistance 'mechanisms' along with attempts to try to identify and quantify selective pressure workings are far more prudent inquiries.(and more interesting topics for discussion) Iirc, there was even an article looking into some of this in the ?same? edition of Malaria Journal which prompted the Eritrea post? I'm not positive about that, but why not bring up these articles as well?
cs, if you are not going to read my post, why should I read your comment?
When C sobers up (not always a pleasant activity) might I suggest a moderated google discussion group (m. Tobis recently started one for climate issues) or a group blog.
Tim, you're right about that, and so I read it, and read the links posted. Mostly politics though, very little real information to glean.
Eli, thanks for the encouragement, I'd probably prefer a group -type blog. Moderating wouldn't be my thing though, else how would I know if my personal biases wouldn't influence what I decided to moderate?