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
|