 |
 |
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 ----------------------------------------------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%