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
- Friday Weird Sex Blogging - Corkscrewing
- Postscript to Pittendrigh's Pet Project - Phototaxis, Photoperiodism and Precise Projectile Parabolas of Pilobolus on Pasture Poop
- ScienceOnline2011 – interview with Dave Mosher
- Guest Blog at Scientific American - first guest post: Apple, meet Orange
- Quick Links
- Cognitive Bias Song (video)
- ScienceOnline09 - blog coverage so far
- BIO101 - Cell Structure
- Fizzler on the Roof
- Triangle Blogging Teach-ins
@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.