Formally, the journal states that the paper was retracted because claims "...that children were "consecutively referred" and that investigations were "approved" by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false," though I can't help but think that no one else has been able to replicate their findings might have a little bit to do with it as well.
BTW (and I had to look this up myself), "consecutively referred" means that patients are included in the study as they come in, not selected for sampling by the researchers. In other words, this is a roundabout way of accusing the authors of cherry-picking their subjects, something that is particularly problematic when you are claiming to find a causal link between two things after the fact. To put it mildly.
Now, as I've said before...go vaccinate your rugrats!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'd rather my child die from a preventable disease than take a marginal chance of raising an retard kid. Meh, maybe I wouldn't be so biased against the disorder if it weren't the "my child is special so let's have useless parent-teacher meetings about how special they really are and oh by the way my kid is on prescription drugs" disease du jour.
Well I hope that settles it. Now Jenny McCarthy can go back to being a great rack with a terrific sense of humor again. We can hope.
I think Bill Hicks pointed out, your kids aren't special.
Well ... except for mine. But they won't need vaccines because everyone else gets them. So I can not get them vaccinated and I avoid any risk of their getting autism.
Seriously, I've heard that line of thinking before. Some parents are morons.
Too bad this won't get picked up by the mass media with the same fervor as the original article though.
Post a Comment