In <[log in to unmask]>, on 01/23/99
at 09:52 AM, Andrew Thomas <[log in to unmask]> said:
>I would like to briefly respond to a couple of your comments.
>First, yes it was the timing of the publication which was so damaging
>here. Not statistical science behind the article nor the article's
>conclusions taken in a vaccuum were the problem. Dr. Anderson's action
>was driven by the fact that the article was specifically accelerated
>through the JAMA system to coincide with the impeachment trial -- Dr.
>Anderson felt that this was a very irresponsible act and rose to the
>level of dismissal.
Dr Thomas-
Why did he feel this was irresponsible (I judge it RESPONSIBLE)?
It is certainly not self-evident.
It gives the appearance of trying to hide something relevant to the
current national debate.
Steve Rinsler, MD
[SNIP]
>Please contact me at [log in to unmask] if you have any further questions.
>Andrew Thomas, MD
>AMA Board of Trustees
>Karen Ingvoldstad wrote:
>> At the risk of being booted off a list I find very informative, I would like to
>> add perspective of someone outside of medical publishing circles. Having just
>> come from a long stint in Washington, there are a couple questions that I have not
>> seen addressed here.
>>
>> I think everyone would agree that Congress has really put their necks on the line
>> to get this impeachment trial to where it is today. They are currently being
>> portrayed somewhat as juvenile in the media (which seems to forget it is also
>> responsible!), highly partisan, and are rightly concerned about their reputation.
>> I would not underestimate the animosity Congress may have towards those who show
>> their issues to be trivial AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. For those who are not
>> American, the heart of one of the Articles of Impeachment IS perjury, including
>> Clinton s denial that he had sexual relations with you-know-who based on his
>> interpretation of the term: oral sex is not sex ual relations. As the JAMA study
>> demonstrates, many Americans share this interpretation.
>> When it comes to editorial freedom/censorship, I have a couple questions. Isn t
>> the issue in this instance more of timing, rather than actual publication of the
>> study? (If I understand correctly, wasn t its review/publication accelerated?)
>>
[SNIP]
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask]
Stephen S Rinsler, MD
Chester, NJ 07930
-----------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|