Before two papers passed the peer-review and got published, WHO (which was given the data) made its own interpretation of the findings and included it in its press kit, including the errors they made in that interpretation. A complex story – what’s your take on it?
My Homepage
My homepage is at http://coturnix.org. It is temporarily stripped to minimal information, but more will come soon.Grab my RSS feed:
-
Join 1,504 other subscribers
Search This Blog:
Archives
Categories
Recent Comments:
Bora Zivkovic on Morning at Triton Angie Lindsay Ma on Morning at Triton Linda chamblee on Morning at Triton Jekyll » Blog… on The Big Announcement, this tim… Mike H on The Big Announcement, this tim… -
Recent Posts
Top Posts
- Christopher Perrien interview at ScienceOnline2010
- Clocks in Bacteria IV: Clocks in other bacteria
- Friday Weird Sex Blogging - Corkscrewing
- Best posts on Media, (Science) Journalism and Blogging at A Blog Around The Clock
- Open Laboratory 2010 - two weeks to go!
- My Picks From ScienceDaily
- Friday Weird Sex Blogging - Sensory Neuroscience
- Circadian Rhythm of Alcohol Tolerance
- Darwin Quotes
- The Synapse - last call for submissions
@BoraZ on Twitter:
Tweets by BoraZCC licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.PayPal

Sitemeter






WHO should strive to be as trustworthy as humanly possible. Period. Shame on them.