I agree,
There are plenty of reasons for retractions for all articles besides those you state. Just because a journal reviews a spreadsheet or the stats does not mean they have control or knowledge of how data was collected or manipulated. This is indeed a matter of concern for international collaborators who may see the numbers but have no knowledge other than the clinical sites word on how this was collected and if they were in compliance with good clinical practice.
There is evidence that the US Dietary Guidelines are not what they could be and plenty of research is emerging on this. I think we would be better concerned that no nation has succeeded in any campaign to reduce obesity so obviously this industry needs help. Most gain weight back and more within two years. Even with only observation of the obesity climb in the US it does not appear the dietary guidelines are having impact as obesity continues to multiply so these guidelines are not problem solvers.
I appreciate that the BMJ has promoted transparency in research and requires statements on PPI. They have also initiated an excellent patient reviewer program. The Center for Science is hedging their comments with could be rather than is so I suggest waiting for the evidence rather than the rhetoric before making a judgement call and sending out for the tar and feathers:-)
Best
Amy
On 1/5/16, 10:16 AM, "Evidence based health (EBH) on behalf of v v vlassov" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hey, Anoop,
>what you are saying is absolutely not fair.
>BMJ in most cases for dozens of years I read it is the journal
>struggling for scientific rigor and truth. Even this article in Statnews
>mentioned the great battles they won for this.
>The specific example of the diet guidelines is an example of a difficult
>field guaned by low quality science, and I hope that this discussion
>will help us to move to the better evidence in the field
>bw
>vvv
>
>On 05/01/2016 02:40, Anoop B wrote:
>> Thank you for the link!!
>> It is interesting that the footnote of the BMJ article read "Provenance
>> and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed and fact checked."
>> But funny that the major reason for retraction could be the "factual
>> errors" as reported by the Center for Science.
>> This is just a clear and familiar example of journals and
>> editors prioritizing sensationalism over scientific rigor and truth!
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Christie A <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> This profile of Fiona Godlee at STAT News also touches on the
>> controversy over BMJ’s publication of Nina Teicholz's criticisms of
>> the US Dietary guidelines.
>>
>> http://www.statnews.com/2016/01/04/bmj-editor-fiona-godlee/
>>
>>
>> -Christie
>>
>>
>
>--
>Vasiliy V. Vlassov, MD
>President, Society for Evidence Based Medicine (osdm.org)
>e-mail: vlassov[a t]cochrane.ru
>snail mail: P.O.Box 13 Moscow 109451 Russia
>Phone Russia +7(965) 2511021
>
>Подпишись на новости на osdm.org
|