 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
fter reviewing Rae, et al.'s study in the Lancet, I was pleased to see that evidence was continuing to mount for an inner-ear (Cerebellar-Vestibular [CV]) origin of dyslexia. Unfortunately, upon review, I noticed that in the discussion of their findings, the authors cited references that had nothing or very little to do with the content discussed. I sent the publishers at the Lancet a letter that I also wanted to share with my readers. I will also share their reply.
— Harold Levinson, M.D.
Letter to the Lancet — August 7, 1998
Dear Gentlemen
I read with great interest Rae, et al.'s study in The Lancet entitled, "Metabolic abnormalities in developmental dyslexia detected by 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy."
This interest is based on my research highlighting the cerebellar-vestibular origin, diagnosis and treatment of dyslexia — a project encompassing over 30,000 patients over the past 30 years. To my dismay, I came across content in the above paper which by error: (i) failed to properly reference my research while quoting it, and (ii) referenced authors having nothing or very little to do with the content discussed.
Thus, for example, on page 1852, Rae, et al. state:
"Dyslexic people are often uncoordinated with poor balance and delayed motor milestones such as crawling, walking, and learning to ride a bike (10,22). Antimotion sickness medications, which may be considered Åcerebellar-vestibular stabilizers, have been shown to improve reading performance in dyslexia (23). The present study has shown significant metabolic abnormalities in the cerebellum in dyslexia."
As a review of my dyslexia-related papers indicate, the role of antimotion sickness medications and the term "cerebellar-vestibular stabilizers" are all basic to my research, as is emphasis of poor balance/coordination/rhythm and timing in this disorder. As a result, I redefined the dyslexia syndrome as a cerebellar-vestibular determined spatial-temporal sensory-motor dysfunction in dynamic equilibrium with compensating mechanisms.
By contrast, all the referenced papers noted within the above quoted content by Rae, et al. have either nothing to do with the paragraph's content or are significantly based on my research. Thus, for example, even their reference (#23) to Wilsher, et al.'s study on Piracetam and dyslexia never links this drug to the cerebellar-vestibular stabilizing properties. This linkage was recognized and described by me in a paper entitled, "Dramatic favorable responses of dyslexics to Antimotion sickness medications — four case reports." Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1991; 73:723-38.
In as much as the value of Rae, et al.'s data would be significantly enhanced by including the proper and accurate references to my cerebellar-vestibular research, and as this error casts significant but undeserved doubt on both the paper's content and the objectivity of the Lancet's reviewers, I would greatly appreciate a printed correction within one of the Lancet's next issues.
Sincerely,
Harold N. Levinson, M.D.
P.S. I would greatly appreciate your forwarding these comments to Rae and colleagues. I am delighted by their research and believe that a joint discourse of our respective findings and data will be truly rewarding for all.
Letter from the Lancet — August 20, 1998
Dear Dr. Levinson,
You wrote us about Rae and colleagues report and asked us to pass your letter on to these authors. That we have done, inviting them to correspond to you directly.
Yours sincerely,
Stephanie Clark, Ph.D.
Senior editor
Letter to the Lancet — August 24, 1998
Dear Ms. Clark,
I appreciate your prompt response to my fax concerning the paper by Rae and colleagues and sending it on to them. However, omitted from your reply was my request that The Lancet publishes a correction — such as that I'm now faxing you. I await your equally prompt reply.
Sincerely,
Harold N. Levinson, M.D.
Letter from the Lancet — September 14, 1998
Dear Dr. Levinson,
You asked us to publish a correction. I am afraid we cannot do that. In your original letter you asked us to pass on your letter to the authors, and that we did. It is up to them to ask for a correction. In non-review papers we do restrict the number of references and this may well be why the authors were unable to refer to your work. May I suggest that you correspond with them directly?
Yours sincerely,
Stephanie Clark, Ph.D.
Senior Editor
hile the official policy of the Lancet may require the correction of an article to be initiated by the author of the original article, in the Lancet's instructions to authors, it does allow individuals to submit letters to the editor in the form of comments.
Correspondence in the form of a comment letter is not usually peer reviewed and the journal may invite replies for publication in the same issue. The only steadfast rule the Lancet provides is that the letter should reach the journal within eight weeks of the publication of the item commented on.
As one can see, I did send a reply in the configuration required by the journal. At no time did the Lancet offer the possibility of publishing my letter as a commentary. I may not have come out and specifically stated that I wanted to publish this as a comment letter, but both the intent and form of the letter made it implicitly clear of my desire to request the letter be printed.
— Harold Levinson, M.D.
