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
- ZooBorns!
- Friday Weird Sex Blogging - Corkscrewing
- Alert! Some Big And Important And Exciting News!
- Web breaks echo-chambers, or, 'Echo-chamber' is just a derogatory term for 'community' - my remarks at #AAASmtg
- Friday Weird Sex Blogging - Corkscrewing
- Drumroll, please! Introducing: Scienceblogging.org
- Scientific Communication all-you-can-eat Linkfest
- Is education what journalists do?
- Science Blogging Networks: What, Why and How
- My first post at ScientificAmerican.com
@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.