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 1,496 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
- Wikipedia, just like an Organism: clock genes wiki pages
- Basics: Biological Clock
- Biology and the Scientific Method
- Clock Tutorial #14: Interpreting The Phase Response Curve
- Friday Weird Sex Blogging - Corkscrewing
- How to teach as much biology in as little time
- Tweetlinks, 10-01-09
- Classroom Blog
- Everything you wanted to know about starch...
- New potential sleeping pill
@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.