<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: JAMA Editors Go Nuts</title>
	<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/24/jama-editors-go-nuts/</link>
	<description>Self-Experimentation, Scientific Method, the Shangri-La Diet, etc.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:56:25 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Seth&#8217;s blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; JAMA Editors Continue to Display Staggeringly Poor Judgment</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/24/jama-editors-go-nuts/#comment-326680</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:03:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/24/jama-editors-go-nuts/#comment-326680</guid>
					<description>[...] In an earlier post I called a certain JAMA editorial &#8220;the most self-righteous editorial I have ever read.&#8221; Perhaps the authors reluctantly agreed; the editorial, which used to be here, is gone. Since I quoted from it, you can still see what I was talking about. The BMJ has an article about the disappearance, which includes this: The BMJ sent emails to JAMA’s editor, Catherine DeAngelis, and the journal’s media relations office asking about the disappearance of the March editorial. The BMJ also asked whether Dr DeAngelis could explain why the new July editorial had toned down the policy outlined in the March editorial. The response from a JAMA spokeswoman was &#8220;no comment.&#8221; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] In an earlier post I called a certain JAMA editorial &#8220;the most self-righteous editorial I have ever read.&#8221; Perhaps the authors reluctantly agreed; the editorial, which used to be here, is gone. Since I quoted from it, you can still see what I was talking about. The BMJ has an article about the disappearance, which includes this: The BMJ sent emails to JAMA’s editor, Catherine DeAngelis, and the journal’s media relations office asking about the disappearance of the March editorial. The BMJ also asked whether Dr DeAngelis could explain why the new July editorial had toned down the policy outlined in the March editorial. The response from a JAMA spokeswoman was &#8220;no comment.&#8221; [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Michele</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/24/jama-editors-go-nuts/#comment-285397</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:16:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/24/jama-editors-go-nuts/#comment-285397</guid>
					<description>The editor of JAMA should step down after such editorial.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The editor of JAMA should step down after such editorial.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
