A medical journal says the case reports it has published for 25 years are, in fact, fiction

Retraction Watch ^ | 3/4/26

[CFW]

A Canadian journal has issued corrections on 138 case reports it published over the last 25 years to add a disclaimer: The cases described are fictional.

Paediatrics & Child Health, the journal of the Canadian Paediatric Society, has published the cases since 2000 in articles for a series for its Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program. The articles usually start with a case description followed by “learning points” that include statistics, clinical observations and data from CPSP. The peer-reviewed articles don’t state anywhere the cases described are fictional.

The corrections come following a January article in New Yorker magazine that mentioned one of the reports — “Baby boy blue,” a case published in 2010 describing an infant who showed signs of opioid exposure via breast milk while his mother was taking acetaminophen with codeine. The New Yorker article made public an admission by one of the coauthors that the case was made up.

“Based on the New Yorker article, we made the decision to add a correction notice to all 138 publications drawing attention to CPSP studies and surveys to clarify that the cases are fictional,” Joan Robinson, editor-in-chief of Paediatrics & Child Health, told Retraction Watch. “From now on, the body of the case report will specifically state that the case is fictional.”

The move came as a surprise to David

---

TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: canada; fraud; journal; medicalcases

[CFW]

These cases have been relied on by professionals and courts over the past few years. All bunk. Made-up. Fake.

Among these? The most detailed report of neonatal opioid toxicity from breastfeeding ever published.

One small problem: It's pharmacologically impossible.

[ClearCase_guy]

Everything is a scam. Everything.

[God luvs America]

but science!!!

[Henry Hnyellar]

TrUsT ThE ScIeNcE!!!!!

[Steely Tom]

Sure, why not?

I was just thinking about how the whole “global warming” thing is all about people wanting their theory to be true, because it has to be true in order to support their larger ideological agenda.

The moment you start thinking that way, you’re no longer doing science. You’re not a scientist any more, you’re a political functionary. A hack. A court figure, a member of the king’s amen corner.

[Leaning Right]

[cockroach_magoo]

Who needs truth when we have “the science?”

[Libloather]

Fake news for 25 years. Total malarkey.

[Tunehead54]

Save this one to new Trust the Science directory under Politics! BUMP!!!

😎 👌

[CFW]

So when you see a news article that states “a new study shows...” the chances are pretty good that the case studied was fictional.

[bigbob]

Fake but accurate?

(The Rather Rule)

[metmom]

Peer review is a sham.

Now when someone claims something is a peer reviewed article, the reaction can be *So what?*

[existentially_kuffer]

>>>One small problem: It’s pharmacologically impossible.

Not to the unsuspecting General Public!

[Bayard]

The amount of fraud in our institutions should and probably will end western civilization.

[RainMan]

I had this argument with a coworker 20 years ago. His wife was a research scientist and I basically said “peer review only works if the peers actually perform the science themselves and get identical results. Furthermore, the scientific method requires that anyone that gets a result contrary to the original results must submit them as well, because the science was based on a theory, and they proved the theory wrong, so the postulation must be modified to address the inconsistencies. This is much like saying I have a theory that 1+1 = 2. Most of the time it is correct, but if someone is using base 2 math, the answer is 10. So the modified theory would be that 1+1=2 so long as the number set being used is greater than base 2.”

He told me I was ridiculous, and that is not how science works.

[alternatives?]

How many times have the recommendations on eating eggs changed over the past 25 years. If they can’t figure out eggs, how can they be certain on climate change?

[metmom]

*Science* doesn’t work any more.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Good evening ladies! ~Resource links for your files! Retraction study gold!

Ransom! Zounds! They list over 649 retracted articles on covid! (Golly! What ever could be going on here???) I will PM them to you as Well.

Retraction Watch Lists

The Retraction Watch Leaderboard
Retractions by Nobel Prize winners
Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers
The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List
The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker
Papers and peer reviews with evidence of ChatGPT writing
Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers

[I-ambush]

If the case reports in the most respected Canadian pediatric journal can’t be trusted, then you know that reports are all BS in “Kill Me Now,” the journal for the Canadian Society for Medical Assistance in Dying.

[BFW]

It’s good for you, it’s bad for them, it’s not canon for that problem.....until a sufficient enough of time has passed to show it is.

Coffee good, bad, good, bad, not bad but limited, good again...

Beef fat tallow, bad, bad, ah not recommended, ah it better the hydrogenated oil, hydrogenated oil was pushed as good because the scientists were paid off????

Beef fat tallow good.

Eggs ..... always ate eggs, always..........

The same lame stream news organizations that do this to food and then they do the same thing to general news and politics......and they wonder why their rating are in the toilet.

Unverified studies = Trash.

Peer reviewed studies = trash with one other guy saying “yeah, it could happen”

Study reproduced (only if the full means and procedures followed) even then sometimes you get garbage in - garbage out. (GIGO)

Common sense isn’t really that common.