Indeed, the study's flaws went much deeper than mathematics, and the CDC knew it. A story in the May issue of Science magazine found that political considerations might have influenced the authors' work. "Some researchers, including a few at the CDC, ... argue that the paper's compatibility with a new anti-obesity theme in government public health pronouncements -- rather than sound analysis -- propelled it to print," Science reported. Tellingly, many researchers refused to be identified for the story. Said one, "I don't want to lose my job." Meanwhile, CDC researchers released two separate studies over the summer critical of the JAMA paper.
The CDC finally took action months later by conducting its own internal investigation, which released its findings two weeks ago. "While there was at least one error in the calculations ... the fundamental scientific problem centers around the limitations in both the data and the methodology," the report found. By this point, there was enough evidence undermining the original paper for the CDC to retract it. Instead, it has run just a single correction in the January issue of JAMA that cited "an error in [the CDC's] computations," while saying nothing of the paper's flawed methodology.
But apparently the CDC doesn't consider methodology to be of much importance. Last week, CCF Director Richard Berman wrote an op-ed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that was highly critical of the CDC's conduct regarding the flawed report. In response, CDC chief science officer Dixie E. Snider wrote, "[W]e cannot and should not let this discussion of scientific methodology detract from the real issue." This is dangerous reasoning indeed coming from a scientist.
It's clear that over the concerns of its own researchers the CDC shamefully pushed a scientifically flawed study to reach some politically correct end. Since then, it has not given contrary evidence publicity equal to the original report. Nothing less than a full retraction of the original study and an apology to the American people can amend these egregious mistakes.
Ping for comments
Well, I expect they'll retract this when they retract all of the bogus second-hand smoke "studies". And that will be about the time hell freezes over.
It's gotten much worse in the last five years, and it's becoming an embarassment.
I feel bad for the career scientists, but the politicians they work for are whores, and there's no future there for them if they don't toe, or avoid altogether, the party line.
Yes, but there are more scientists out there who think and work this way than not. It's just human nature to think you know the answer and just go out looking for the data to support it. It takes a lot of discipline to gather data objectively.
Never let truth interfere with one's agenda.
I heard some very interesting things on talk radio this morning concerning an oxygen/ozone treatment and the amazing curative it is for viruses as well as such things as Strokes. Does anyone here know anything about it?
Word is that the Drug Companies have squashed news of it because it's easy and cheap..no drugs involved.
Apparently the whole world knows about it including that third world cesspool, Cuba.
IT's a mixture of 98% oxygen, 2% ozone. It can be administered in different ways...not thru air passages, however.
First chance I get, I'll try to Google and search it out. It sounds incredible. It basically cleans the blood of toxins and viruses. It is only administered thru Natural medicine outlets here in the US.
For strokes, it must be done within 2 days of the stroke..the sooner the better.