Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
Joe BidenCongratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
 

lapucelle

(21,066 posts)
163. WaPo says that the editorial was not peer reviewed.
Wed Sep 4, 2019, 08:21 PM
Sep 2019

Himmelstein is confusing the editorial he published in 2019, cited by BS and fact checked by WaPo with a study he co-authored a decade ago.

Sanders said 500,000 people were driven to bankruptcy by medical bills. A Sanders campaign aide said he was relying on an editorial published by the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) in March.

The AJPH editorial did not undergo the same peer-reviewed editing process as a research article.

“In AJPH, many editorials are commissioned by the editor-in-chief from experts in their field(s), as a forum to present their most recent or preliminary findings on specific topics, or to coincide with significant dates or events,” said Morgan Richardson, an AJPH editor. “Lack of peer review does not indicate inaccuracy, but editorials are less likely to be cited in the scientific literature as evidence because the standard of rigor is different due to context.”

However, Himmelstein used a methodology similar to what he, Warren and other researchers used in a 2005 peer-reviewed study that they updated in 2009. Warren was a co-author of those two studies, but not the AJPH editorial published in March.

******************************************************************************************

The study was published in 2005 and updated and re-published 2009. Both iterations were peer reviewed and both were co-authored by Elizabeth Warren.

The editorial that BS cited was published in 2019. It was not co-authored by Elizabeth Warren and it was not peer reviewed.

BS was relying on the information in the editorial (not the peer-reviewed studies co-authored by Elizabeth Warren) when he made the claims that earned him a Three Pinocchios rating.

As for any alleged besmirching of anyone's reputation, my advice to the good doctor would be to go back and carefully re-read what the fact check article actually says.

*****************************************************************************************

Update, Sept. 3: The Sanders campaign objected to this fact check, as did the key researchers of the AJPH editorial. Please see the response below by Himmelstein and his colleague Steffie Woolhandler. We stand by our Three-Pinocchio rating.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/28/sanderss-flawed-statistic-medical-bankruptcies-year/?noredirect=on

*****************************************************************************************

The peer reviewed study by David U. Himmelstein, MD, Deborah Thorne, PhD, Elizabeth Warren, JD, and Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH:

https://pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf#page=3

The editorial by David U. Himmelstein MD, Robert M. Lawless JD, Deborah Thorne PhD, Pamela Foohey JD, and Steffie Woolhandler MD, MPH that BS cited:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304901
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I didn't see that coming.... OnDoutside Sep 2019 #1
As usual WaPo is correct in fact checking Bernie. As usual Bernie's comradebillyboy Sep 2019 #2
Nothing new. efhmc Sep 2019 #3
Try viewing the video. KPN Sep 2019 #5
The video says (at about 2:50) that medical expenses are a "contributing factor"... George II Sep 2019 #17
"How much of a "contributing factor" - 10%, 20%, 30%? " melman Sep 2019 #56
It's been represented more than once that medical expenses are THE reason for bankruptcies.... George II Sep 2019 #60
"If it's only 30%" melman Sep 2019 #61
If it's only 30%, that means OTHER reasons other than medical expenses represent 70% of the reason. George II Sep 2019 #63
What do I say about what? melman Sep 2019 #64
Not unexpected. Have a great night melman. George II Sep 2019 #65
That's one way of avoiding the topic when one is losing ground. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #125
Invincible Ignorance Fallacy: ehrnst Sep 2019 #151
Complete nonsense melman Sep 2019 #155
That's an excellent example! ehrnst Sep 2019 #172
Huh? You obviously didn't view the video. KPN Sep 2019 #4
Lol. Yeah it's a conspiracy against Bernie. MrsCoffee Sep 2019 #6
No. Just pointing out facts. But there is a lot of bias against Bernie simpply because he has KPN Sep 2019 #10
"Bias?" ehrnst Sep 2019 #39
No, bias is bias. Fact checking that relies on actual KPN Sep 2019 #42
Because it doesn't flatter Senator Sanders... ehrnst Sep 2019 #48
How so -- to both relative to your point? KPN Sep 2019 #74
I tell you what... ehrnst Sep 2019 #90
... ehrnst Sep 2019 #131
"Gross generalities", as you put it, are what the premise of the % of bankruptcies was based. George II Sep 2019 #50
"It occurs solely because some go into attack mode on anything Bernie." ehrnst Sep 2019 #126
"Because Bernie could not POSSIBLY ever, have made an error? " melman Sep 2019 #127
Actually, the only logical basis for your premise. ehrnst Sep 2019 #130
My premise melman Sep 2019 #136
I did check them. ehrnst Sep 2019 #138
The bias is only as perceived. In fact, there IS no bias. George II Sep 2019 #45
Links please. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #59
Not going to hold my breath on that.... ehrnst Sep 2019 #73
Nor will I, ehrnst. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #81
If you need links, you either haven't been paying attention KPN Sep 2019 #129
This is what I asked a link for... sheshe2 Sep 2019 #132
That's gonna leave a mark... ehrnst Sep 2019 #133
Truth. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #135
I stand by what I said. It was not my intent to insult you but I can see how KPN Sep 2019 #137
Well, the apology is a start.... but ehrnst Sep 2019 #140
Thanks for the stab at an apology. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #157
What you responded to was a long way of saying "it's opinion", not fact. George II Sep 2019 #159
"I have better things to do with my time than try to meet anyone's demand for "links" ehrnst Sep 2019 #134
No easier than the specious attacks on Sanders KPN Sep 2019 #139
"specious attacks on Sanders" ehrnst Sep 2019 #141
My ... you really do have a strong disdain for KPN Sep 2019 #143
Got nothing? ehrnst Sep 2019 #144
Oh snap. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #153
So, why exactly are you NOT supporting "the person who has probably been the most aggressive ehrnst Sep 2019 #145
No. There are a couple of other candidates whose KPN Sep 2019 #169
It's not about the person melman Sep 2019 #146
Let's review who's 'making it about Bernie..." ehrnst Sep 2019 #149
Not about policy. betsuni Sep 2019 #164
Agreed -- the usual suspects. KPN Sep 2019 #174
Do you have time to post the links? sheshe2 Sep 2019 #152
That's IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ehrnst Sep 2019 #154
I feel chastised. :( sheshe2 Sep 2019 #156
To you. Not to me and many others -- perhaps more than not. KPN Sep 2019 #175
So tell us, what "genuine progressive economic policy" has he gotten enacted "over the past.... George II Sep 2019 #162
Whatever you do. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #165
... George II Sep 2019 #166
+++++++++++++++++++++ sheshe2 Sep 2019 #171
Look up his amendments, there are a lot -- if you really are interested. I'm not your gofer George. KPN Sep 2019 #176
"maths" melman Sep 2019 #147
Yes they are, to those of us who value facts anyway. ehrnst Sep 2019 #148
definition sheshe2 Sep 2019 #158
Well, we're not in British or in Britain now are we? KPN Sep 2019 #177
Don't feel bad. Lots of people make the mistake of trying to correct someone ehrnst Sep 2019 #178
You are telling me that all posters on DU live in the US? sheshe2 Sep 2019 #180
Links? George II Sep 2019 #160
;) sheshe2 Sep 2019 #161
Links?? Okay ... KPN Sep 2019 #179
Bazinga! George II Sep 2019 #170
Still waiting on backup for this "specious" claim.... ehrnst Sep 2019 #142
The media is "ignoring" him, but.... George II Sep 2019 #18
I would loved to be ignored that way. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #82
Lol Wawannabe Sep 2019 #58
Indeed. MrsCoffee Sep 2019 #7
So you think WaPo's version of this is correct? thesquanderer Sep 2019 #8
ty for the article..i prefer reading too...from the article questionseverything Sep 2019 #76
According to the facts in this article, the Washington Post is correct Gothmog Sep 2019 #9
This attitude is exactly why we don't always get out the vote. Poo-pawing or downplaying KPN Sep 2019 #11
The Washington Post read the underlying study which is part of fact checking Gothmog Sep 2019 #12
In the real world, one needs to keep an open mind in order to tell the difference betwen KPN Sep 2019 #13
Fact checking means checking the facts Gothmog Sep 2019 #14
The underlying facts were that 530000+ people went bankrupt KPN Sep 2019 #19
Yes, that's the fact that is being used - 530,000 PEOPLE went bankrupt, .... George II Sep 2019 #22
I am less concerned with the number, because it surely is a problem, and more Eliot Rosewater Sep 2019 #23
Now that is a reasonable statement and one KPN Sep 2019 #30
I am concerned if someone who claims they can fix a problem gets their numbers wrong ehrnst Sep 2019 #31
YEAH I hear you, I do...But imagine if he actually did win, is he going to change his Eliot Rosewater Sep 2019 #52
Oh brother. Ridiculous. KPN Sep 2019 #28
What's ridiculous about it? Care to share with us all? George II Sep 2019 #33
I already have above. Several times. KPN Sep 2019 #34
That's one way to avoid the question. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #68
Invincible Ignorance Fallacy: ehrnst Sep 2019 #150
The study cited does not support that claim according to the Washington Post Gothmog Sep 2019 #24
Oh really. Well, why don't you go ahead and KPN Sep 2019 #32
The study stated that bankruptcies were due to more than one condition Gothmog Sep 2019 #53
Indeed. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #96
If a politician is going to use numbers to support their case, the numbers should be correct. ehrnst Sep 2019 #98
Apparently some candidates are considered "exempt' from fact checking ehrnst Sep 2019 #29
incorrect questionseverything Sep 2019 #77
A thing is either accurate or it is not. LanternWaste Sep 2019 #15
Yup. It's accurate -- like global warming is KPN Sep 2019 #20
No, global warming is supported by facts. The WAPO piece is like climate science ehrnst Sep 2019 #93
I would venture to guess that more voters are turned off by candidates exaggerating.... George II Sep 2019 #16
As viewed from an obviously biased perspective. KPN Sep 2019 #21
In what way is the perspective biased? Where are the REAL numbers specifically? I don't see them. George II Sep 2019 #35
How about look at the study. KPN Sep 2019 #36
I did. With an OPEN mind. George II Sep 2019 #37
So what are those specific facts? KPN Sep 2019 #40
As I said: George II Sep 2019 #43
... KPN Sep 2019 #109
Well... ehrnst Sep 2019 #104
Okay, pick bones between contributed and caused if you like. The point being contributed has the KPN Sep 2019 #108
Contributed to, and causality are not mere 'bones' when it comes to statistics. ehrnst Sep 2019 #110
Oh, like carbon emissions relative to global warming. KPN Sep 2019 #113
Actually, not the same thing at all. ehrnst Sep 2019 #115
Exactly melman Sep 2019 #111
Thank you. It is ugly and unbecoming. KPN Sep 2019 #112
Ugly and unbecoming is attacking the messenger. ehrnst Sep 2019 #117
You mean correcting Bernie's statistics is what you think is ugly. ehrnst Sep 2019 #116
Now there's a euphemism ... "correcting" something that was in my very educated opinion KPN Sep 2019 #118
Your very educated opinion doesn't outweigh this groups' collective very educated opinion ehrnst Sep 2019 #119
No melman Sep 2019 #121
Yes ehrnst Sep 2019 #124
Facts are facts and the Washington Post did its job in checking the facts Gothmog Sep 2019 #25
No, they lied. WAPO said the study that Bernie used was not peer reviewed and in fact it was, Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #26
I trust the Washington Post here Gothmog Sep 2019 #27
Indeed. Far more than an opinion piece by Krystal Ball. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #41
I was disappointed in that piece by Krystal Ball Gothmog Sep 2019 #51
They "lied"? They didn't have a problem with it but they clearly looked at it more objectively. George II Sep 2019 #38
If the WaPo made a mistake I'm sure they will make a retraction Thekaspervote Sep 2019 #54
WaPo published an update today. They are standing by their Three-Pinocchio rating. lapucelle Sep 2019 #80
That's not what WaPo said. lapucelle Sep 2019 #79
There you go, bringing facts into this.... ehrnst Sep 2019 #91
Regarding peer review Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #107
WaPo says that the editorial was not peer reviewed. lapucelle Sep 2019 #163
re: "According to the facts in this article, the Washington Post is correct..." thesquanderer Sep 2019 #173
500,000? myohmy2 Sep 2019 #44
Bernie does abide. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #47
That 500,000, which was then increased to 530,000, is people, not bankruptcies... George II Sep 2019 #69
"...you can't beat Bernie..." ehrnst Sep 2019 #99
About The Hill. ehrnst Sep 2019 #46
What does WAPO have to say about Rolling Stone? Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #49
According to Himmelstein, the author of the study: George II Sep 2019 #66
Yep. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #67
Another evasion of the actual question. No surprise. But since you brought it up.... ehrnst Sep 2019 #97
"Well, being hot doesn't hurt either. " melman Sep 2019 #55
Not my take, but if that's where your head's at.... ehrnst Sep 2019 #70
Oh I think it is your take melman Sep 2019 #83
Hmmm....not who she was mocking................................... sheshe2 Sep 2019 #84
+1000 ehrnst Sep 2019 #88
No, not what I said, and not who I was mocking at all. ehrnst Sep 2019 #89
Hook. Line. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #181
Here's an article from the NCBI published in The New England Journal of Medicine- peer reviewed Thekaspervote Sep 2019 #57
Damn corporate media!! They're just threatened by... ehrnst Sep 2019 #71
Ntl Cntr of Biotech info with a peer reviewed paper published in The New England Journal of Thekaspervote Sep 2019 #78
Are you saying that this paper is more accurate than ehrnst Sep 2019 #95
Not a Sanders fan for numerous reasons, but too many financial hardships are caused by health costs. Hoyt Sep 2019 #62
If a Pol is going to quote numbers, that pol needs to be sure that those numbers are correct. ehrnst Sep 2019 #72
He was close enough. It's not like we need action only when it's over 500K. Hoyt Sep 2019 #75
"Close enough" isn't going to cut it in the age of the internet and fact checks. ehrnst Sep 2019 #94
I go to Krystal Ball when I want an ubiased analysis comradebillyboy Sep 2019 #85
I think the Washington Post has a lot more credibility than either comradebillyboy Sep 2019 #86
Seems like a lot of energy spent arguing about a factoid in a campaign speech. TreasonousBastard Sep 2019 #87
If one is going to make a point with facts, it's sort of important that they be facts ehrnst Sep 2019 #92
Are you equally concerned by Factcheck.org's finding that Warren's Wealth Tax will yield only 40% Hoyt Sep 2019 #100
Concerned? ehrnst Sep 2019 #101
I said earlier I am not a Sander's fan and I am positive he's wrong about the cost of M4A. Hoyt Sep 2019 #102
"if his stats are a little off or difficult to prove." ehrnst Sep 2019 #103
I get tired of all candidates promising the world with questionable funding sources. Hoyt Sep 2019 #105
Well, this OP is about a candidate using faulty statistics to make a point. ehrnst Sep 2019 #106
Bernie is right about this. I'm not necessarily a Bernie supporter, but I don't like to see stupid DanTex Sep 2019 #114
What "stupid false attack?" Fact checking? ehrnst Sep 2019 #120
The study Bernie cited found 530,000 medical bankruptcies, not people. DanTex Sep 2019 #122
The link is for the excerpt above it. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #123
This keeps getting posted but there's a paywall on WAPO and no paragraphs at... brush Sep 2019 #128
Thanks for the thread, Uncle Joe. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #167
Thank you sheshe. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #168
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Democratic Primaries»Krystal Ball: Washington ...»Reply #163