You mean like what the Editor of Science Magazine, Don Kennedy, wrote me back in January of 2006? He wrote this about Gary Matsumoto's article:
That was a News article; it didn't report original research, and the authors of News articles report views of the science as they have found it following investigation. This often sparks disagreements.
So, the article printed in Science magazine was a "News article" and not a science article? And "it didn't report original research"?
Does that mean the editor of Science magazine considers it to be "discredited?"
No, as I said - discredited is when the editor publicly acknowledges that a statement was there that should NOT have passed peer review. And when the article is rebutted in the same journal by another scientist who requests specific new information to be published - and the original author makes no response - THAT is discredited.
Of course when other authors quote and then ignore the conclusions of the author - as has now been done by the CDC/Army authors of the Aerosol Scince paper - that’s also a sure sign that a paper has been discredited.
Maybe Beecher will publish these pure spore SEM images - that is - if he still holds a job in the FBI labs.