Re: Wing: Descriptive Epidemiology by Any Other Name...

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@ix.netcom.com>]

> What was in the media was nothing more (and often less) than what
> was in the press release.  As a scientist, I cannot critique a study
> when I haven't seen it.
> To critique a study on the basis of a press release is as
> irresponsible as publishing by press release in the first place.

John Moulder makes a valid point with respect to critiquing any 
news publication. However, the Columbia Study had been previously 
published. The Columbia Study authors replied to the Wing news 
release, and reported the various discrepancies. I believe that is is 
prudent for other HPs to also come forward and address the same 
issues as raised by the original study authors. Unfortunately, I have 
not seen any comments reported that DO address the many 
discrepancies, other than Mike Grissom's posting regarding the TV 
news report, which did add the caveat that just Wing is part of a 
suit against the operators of TMI.

HPs are always critiquing information, data and innuendoes. Do we 
really need to wait for the entire report to be published, when we 
have an individual, Wing, in this case, interviewed and quoted? We 
have the original authors stating their concerns regarding the study 
.. what we don't have is an industry groups supporting the Columbia 
authors, and, the public could perceive this NO COMMENT from the 
industry as an acknowledgement that maybe there really is a problem.

------------------
Sandy Perle
Technical Director
ICN Dosimetry Division
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Office: (800) 548-5100 x2306 
Fax:    (714) 668-3149
  
mailto:sandyfl@ix.netcom.com
mailto:sperle@icnpharm.com

Personal Homepages:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205 (primary)
http://www.netcom.com/~sandyfl/home.html (secondary)

"The object of opening the mind as of opening 
the mouth is to close it again on something solid"
              - G. K. Chesterton -