Earlier this year, an analysis by leading researchers completely discredited a key article used as "evidence" by the state of South Dakota and anti-choice supporters in their arguments to the 8th Circuit Federal Appeals Court supporting a law forcing doctors to tell women seeking to terminate a pregnancy that abortion is linked with higher risks of suicide and depression.Now if only the British Journal of Psychiatry would woman/man up and retract her most recent piece of shit.
The researchers also called on the editors of the Journal of Psychiatric Research (JPR) in which the article was originally published in 2009 to retract the article, a step now under consideration by the editors, one of which cited the article's "serious deficiencies."
And kudos to the real scientists who persist in investigating and destroying BAD Science. Real scientists like the ones at the new and desperately needed Bad Science Watch. Its purpose is to promote good science in Canadian public policy.
Canada needs real change. Bad Science Watch is here to make that change a reality.
We are creating what will be Canada’s most effective and consistently successful force countering bad science, strengthening consumer protection regulation, and advocating for sound science in making important societal decisions.
Please support our work. Help us achieve the change our country needs by donating to Bad Science Watch, and joining the fight, through our Action Alerts mailing list.
1 comment:
Will not the moth of faith-based morality be scorched by the flame of reliable evidence? Something is amiss.
The repeated attempts to create 'decoy truth' in the face of conflicting (though reliable) evidence must reduce the number and quality of one's prospective adherents. The temptation to do so is understandable but doesn't it display, precisely, a lack of faith in faith?
Post a Comment