We've looked at the Lancet's coverage of Israel before.
Once it blamed Israel for Palestinian Arab men who beat their wives. Yes, really. And that study used some very biased sources as well, and was far from scientific.
Another time the Lancet stated, as fact, the Palestinian Arab claim that “We cannot take care of health and education as long as we live under occupation”. Amazing how Jews managed to build world-class hospitals and universities in Palestine when it was under Ottoman and British rule!
So why should we be surprised that the Lancet ignores Israeli findings - by independent pathologists - that Arafat Jaradat was not tortured and, instead accept the claims of Palestinian Arabs who habitually lie in matters like these?
To add some lies on top of the lies, the Lancet publishes the provably false statistic that Israel has arrested 800,000 Palestinian Arabs since 1967.
Curiously, the Lancet fully accepts the initial charge of Israeli torture of Jaradat as fact, but ignores the later - equally ludicrous - claim that Jaradat was actually beaten to death by Arab "collaborators." No, that Palestinian Arab lie is not judged to be believable by the Lancet, presumably because Israel is not directly blamed.
Finally, Jaradat is described as a "30-year old petrol attendant" in this article, but not as a member of the Al Aqsa Brigades terrorist group.
The Lancet used to be automatically prefixed with the term "prestigious." A more appropriate adjective might be "discredited" or "laughably biased."