Once upon a time, when a news story reported something that showed up in the Lancet, I listened. It was just one of the best medical journals out there, so far as most of us knew, and so information contained in its pages were probably pretty important.

And countless new studies showing groundbreaking research were there, research that could improve so many lives.

Unfortunately, the once great medical journal has gone as so many other places have gone. They’ve fully embraced a particular political agenda and are pushing that instead of unbiased research.

In fact, Lancet just gave us a fantastic example of it.

The once prestigious Lancet medical journal has praised Joe Biden’s end-around the U.S. Congress by establishing the first White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Engaging in much partisan handwringing, the Lancet laments in its latest issue that “Republicans in Congress” have stymied attempts by Democratic lawmakers to pass laws curtailing Americans’ right to bear arms.

Fortunately, the UK-based journal suggests, the shrewd and quick-witted occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has come up with a solution to foil those pesky elected public officials by taking matters into his own hands.

“Overseen by Vice President Kamala Harris, the Office will coordinate and expedite efforts throughout the federal government to deal with the problem of gun violence, develop new initiatives the Biden Administration can undertake, and help implement the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act,” the Lancet approvingly notes.

According to the Lancet, Mr. Biden has acknowledged that the new office may not be the best weapon to address gun control, but it is the only one is his personal arsenal.

Here’s the problem with this whole line of “reasoning,” and it’s a line that someplace like a medical journal should understand quite well. There’s not really as much research supporting gun control working as proponents like to claim.

We’ve talked about how anti-gun research is garbage before.

Yet even if you take the research at face value, it’s still not the slam dunk people want to claim. Rand, which is a left-leaning think tank and wants to perpetuate the idea that gun control works, can’t even find sufficient evidence that much it works.

So why is the Lancet pushing the idea that Biden is doing all he can to address “gun violence” in the United States?

Because it conforms with their own narrative, that guns are bad and regular folks shouldn’t have them.

Now, because this is a medical journal, I’m willing to extend them a tad bit of grace and figure that much of their belief is based on what doctors actually see–generally, the results of a violent crime versus some lawful use of a firearm–and, as a result, has a skewed perspective.

But that only goes so far. After all, they’re a journal that publishes research. They should know how to look at research and should recognize the flaws in countless studies that would get them discredited where they studying literally anything else.

In other words, they should know better.

Whether its a conscious choice to ignore the reality surrounding the claim that gun control works or just pure ignorance, it doesn’t matter. The truth is that somewhere like the Lancet should stay out of politics and focus on medicine. This is the epitome of “stay in your lane,” and while many anti-gun doctors get worked up when told such a thing, the truth is that many only get part of the story and believe they’re now experts on the topic.

They’re not.

And the Lancet isn’t helping, either. Then again, I don’t think anyone there cares.