|
Home > Archive > Politics and Medicine > September 2006 > Breast implant study 'probably flawed'
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Breast implant study 'probably flawed'
|
|
| Nana Weedkiller 2006-09-28, 4:29 pm |
| http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/N...st/01080601.asp
01 August 2006
The editors of a journal that published a study linking silicone breast
implants with higher than normal levels of platinum in the circulation have
urged caution when interpreting the findings.
The results of the study, published in May this year, are 'probably flawed',
according to the editors of Analytical Chemistry.
[quote]
'We firmly believe that journal editors act in the proper interests of
science when they allow the publication of work that may prove to be
controversial, provided that the science behind the results appears to be
solid. In this case, at least some of the science may not meet that mark,
despite the rigours of peer review.' [unquote]
| |
| Nana Weedkiller 2006-09-28, 4:29 pm |
| A link to the study in question:
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample..../ac0514016.html
"Nana Weedkiller" <nanaweedkiller@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bBSSg.3836$Dq3.2392@trndny06...
> http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/N...st/01080601.asp
> 01 August 2006
>
>
> The editors of a journal that published a study linking silicone breast
> implants with higher than normal levels of platinum in the circulation
> have urged caution when interpreting the findings.
>
> The results of the study, published in May this year, are 'probably
> flawed', according to the editors of Analytical Chemistry.
>
> [quote]
>
> 'We firmly believe that journal editors act in the proper interests of
> science when they allow the publication of work that may prove to be
> controversial, provided that the science behind the results appears to be
> solid. In this case, at least some of the science may not meet that mark,
> despite the rigours of peer review.' [unquote]
>
>
| |
|
|
|
|
Despite the rigors of (government) peer review .......
Whats wrong with this statement ?
______________________________
Nana Weedkiller wrote:
> http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/N...st/01080601.asp
> 01 August 2006
>
>
> The editors of a journal that published a study linking silicone breast
> implants with higher than normal levels of platinum in the circulation have
> urged caution when interpreting the findings.
>
> The results of the study, published in May this year, are 'probably flawed',
> according to the editors of Analytical Chemistry.
>
> [quote]
>
> 'We firmly believe that journal editors act in the proper interests of
> science when they allow the publication of work that may prove to be
> controversial, provided that the science behind the results appears to be
> solid. In this case, at least some of the science may not meet that mark,
> despite the rigours of peer review.' [unquote]
|
| |
|
|