"Religious" Varieties, Ideology and the Man in the Mirror, by Marc Comtois
Business
4:00 PM, 07/26/10
The Illusion of an Improving Tax Structure, by Justin Katz
Rhode Island Economy
1:43 PM, 07/26/10
"Getting Unstuck", by Marc Comtois
BlogWorld
1:00 PM, 07/26/10
The Cover Provided by 1 Administration Crony, by Marc Comtois
Rhode Island Politics
12:00 PM, 07/26/10
So When Will the ACLU Be Filing the Other Suit Necessary to Protect "Separation of Church and State" in Cranston?, by Carroll Andrew Morse
Civil Liberties
10:30 AM, 07/26/10
Offense Against Sharia as Disorderly Conduct; Conformity with Sharia as Excuse Under the Law, by Justin Katz
Civil Liberties
9:43 AM, 07/26/10
Those with Time to Wait, by Justin Katz
Where in Rhode Island...
4:59 AM, 07/26/10
Looks Like Charlie Hall was In the Room When the Other Gov Candidates Got the Word, by Monique Chartier
On a Lighter Note...
10:30 PM, 07/25/10
Today's First Reading and an Early Revelation, by Justin Katz
Religion
3:42 PM, 07/25/10
Candidates Who Made the Ballot (Coverage Courtesy of Jim Baron at the Paw Times and Definitely Not of Some Apparent Neophyte at Fountain Street) and a Possible Challenge to Candidate Order, by Monique Chartier
Rhode Island Politics
2:08 PM, 07/25/10
February 8, 2010
Lancet Retracts Article Linking Autism to Vaccine
Marc Comtois
In case you missed it, the medical journal The Lancet has retracted it's oft-cited study that purported to find a link between the Mumps/Measles/Rubella vaccine and autism:
[T]he study by British surgeon and medical researcher Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues appeared in 1998 in The Lancet, “the arguments were considered by many to be proven and the ghastly social drama of the demon vaccine took on a life of its own.”It has also, perhaps, started some media navel-gazing (h/t) regarding how they report preliminary scientific findings or theories as new "facts"....or, dare we say, consensus?...Ten of Wakefield's 13 co-authors renounced the study's conclusions several years ago and The Lancet has previously said it should never have published the research.
“It has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield ... are incorrect,” the internationally renowned scientific journal said in a statement Tuesday. “We fully retract this paper from the published record.”
4:00 PM
| TrackBack (0)


About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Administrator



Which are the three co-authors that did not renounce their own study, and why?
Posted by: isilverman at February 9, 2010 5:39 PM