--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if you're still sparring with Skolnick > > > > > over the TM page, but I thought you might at least > > > > > get a chuckle out of this. Doesn't sound as though > > > > > JAMA plans to have one of its news editors write a > > > > > muckraking expose of these researchers, does it? > > > > > > > > > > July 13, 2006 > > > > > Medical Journal Says It Was Again Misled > > > > > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS > > > > > > > > > > CHICAGO, July 12 For the second time in two months, The > Journal > > > of > > > > > the American Medical Association says it was misled by > > > researchers > > > > > who failed to reveal financial ties to drug companies. > > > > > > > > > > The journal is tightening its policies for researchers as a > > > result. > > > > > > > > Where have we heard this before? Ironically Andrew's been > posting > > > extensive stuff about > > > > his JAMA expose in the Transcendental Meditation article under > the > > > guise of fair and > > > > balanced. Wiki procedures don't reallly have any way of > addressing > > > this kind of thing, I > > > > think, without escalating the matter to the highest levels, > which > > > is a tad silly (both the > > > > requirement and actually doing somethige like that in this > case). > > > > > > I was thinking that you might sneak in a mention > > > of it in one of your back-and-forths with him > > > about his JAMA expose, just to tweak his nose a > > > little. > > > > > > It really is ironic. *Now* JAMA is tightening its > > > policies... And these were actual *studies*, not > > > puff pieces that mention a few studies in passing. > > > > > > > I did already. I quoted his selective quoting of Chopra's book > along with Jim Lippard's > > respose "belongs in publication from Institute for Creation > Research." He's gracefully > > ignored it thus far... > > Um, well, I meant mention the events described > in the AP article and ask whether one of JAMA's > news editors is writing a lengthy expose of the > researchers and their institutions, and whether, > when it's published, there will be a full-dress > press conference, whether Andrew believes JAMA > and the editor will get awards for the hit piece, > etc., etc., etc. > > Then you might ask him why he thinks JAMA is *still* > being bamboozled by researchers not revealing their > financial connections after its terrible experience > with Chopra & Co. showed it didn't do a good enough > job of checking... > > And so on. There are lots of angles to it. >
I did do that a tad also. Haven't checked lately, but he posted other stuff in the discussion page without responding to my provocative remarks. I'm guessing that the wiki folks have quietly suggested he tone things down. With Peter, OTOH, they just kind threw the book at him. Not surprising given what he's been doing. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
