Yesterday I tweeted thus:
Any real scientists care to comment on bad, biased science published in reputable journals? http://bit.ly/ruvHXV I'm thinking @pzmyers
The link goes to Jim Coyne's lambasting of Priscilla Coleman that I blogged about here.
Well, looky here. PZ Myers writes 'Bad science in the British Journal of Psychiatry'. He quotes the wacky stats from Coleman's 'study', including 'nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be attributable to abortion'.
Those numbers are so extravagantly extreme that there ought to be alarm bells going off in your head right now, and the research had better be darned thorough and unimpeachably clean.
As it turns out, it isn't.
But, but, but. . . . It was published in what the Fetus Lobby is calling a 'prestigious' scholarly journal. So we can assume then that her conclusions are valid, yes?
Obviously, you can't assume that. This is a case where the editors and reviewers failed to do their jobs, and that happens way too often…and now this study has been thoroughly politicized and is being touted by the anti-abortion wackaloons to argue that abortion must be banned…for the good of the women. Which is probably one of the few times they've given a damn about the women involved.
Stay tuned. Jim Coyne shows up in the comments, promising more on Lyin' Priscilla next week.
Image source and good site, Bad Science.