[EdLake]

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.

The dictionary definition of "discredit" is:

Discredit, 1. to disbelieve. 2. to cast doubt on. 3. to damage the reputation of; disgrace.

So, "discredit" means to disbelieve. It doesn't mean to disprove.

By that definition, I guess it can be argued that some people disbelieved the article and wanted more proof.

But, obviously, the article can be TOTALLY TRUE and still be disbelieved by people who prefer to believe in conspiracy theories.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[TrebleRebel]

Actually it’s MUCH more somple than that. When you publish statements in peer reviewed science journals you are required to provide data to back them up. No data = discredited. The peer review process failed here - but that shouldn’t surprise us when we know the identity of the peer reviewer.

[TrebleRebel]

Actually it’s MUCH more simple than that. When you publish statements in peer reviewed science journals you are required to provide data to back them up. No data = discredited. The peer review process failed here - but that shouldn’t surprise us when we know the identity of the peer reviewer.