Even the bottom-feeding journals seem to have some sense

Posted on by

Thanks to a reader by the moniker of “Lawrence,” I’ve come to find out that “Translational Neurodegeneration” has taken down the article by BS Hooker on MMR and autism. Now, we have this:

http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/3/1/16/abstract

The page where the article used to be now links to a PDF version of it with this message:

“This article has been removed from the public domain because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions. The journal and publisher believe that its continued availability may not be in the public interest. Definitive editorial action will be pending further investigation.”

I call this journal a “bottom feeder” because, in my humble opinion, it has a lot of questionable articles in it and the impact factor of the journal is lacking. But the editorial board has done the right thing in wanting to take another look at the article.

I’m still left wondering how this paper got through peer review, or who did the peer review. They seem to not have bothered with checking the biostatistics or with looking back at the DeStefano paper.

13 thoughts on “Even the bottom-feeding journals seem to have some sense”

  1. I am going to troll a little here but I feel justified as I referred to Translational Neurodegeneration as a “bottom-feeding” journal as well. It isn’t. They are a new journal and while yes, have previously published a dodgy “study” by the Geiers and Hooker, their actions with this study indicate they are interested in their reputation and thus, impact factor. I think we take our knowledge of anti-vaxx antics and the players for granted and project that anyone in the scientific community should also know what we know. They don’t necessarily.

    • It sure seems like it. Look for the Wakefield videos to be taken down and hidden. But I’ve downloaded them, and I’ll put them on YouTube shortly.

      • Thompson is asserting facts that would not only allow a civil suit against Hooker but would also prima facie support criminal charges against Hooker for recording the conversations, since California law (unlike Federal law and the law of some other states) criminalizes recording without the consent of both parties – see http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law for a summary of the law.

        • Georgia also makes it a felony to record a conversation without the permission of all parties involved. Both Georgia and California also prohibit the broadcasting of such recordings.

          • Since Dr. Thompson’s attorneys will be looking at all angles here – a suit filed against both Wakefield and Hooker will probably be seriously considered, if it isn’t taken up as a criminal matter by the authorities – I’m sure the CDC (as a Federal Agency) is fairly unimpressed by someone recording one of its employees without permission…..

  3. Unfortunately, this action – however sensible, and I defer to the experts who seem to think the article was just wrong – will only feed into the “black helicopter” ravings of Jon Rappoport, Mike Adams the Health Danger, the Drinking Moms Revolution, and the like. Not publishing it in the first place would have been far better: there might have been agonized whines of “censorship” by the authors, but publishing and then withdrawing it just gives the conspiracy theorists more to go on about.

    • @Derek – even a bottom-feeding Journal, like the one that published Hooker’s paper, came to realize that the results were invalid & the process was not scientifically sound….yeah, it sucks that it got published in the first place, but the ravings of those various individuals aren’t going to be satisfied by anything less than complete destruction of the US Medical System.

  4. I think that you, Ren and Orac did spectacular work, by analyzing the design and methodology of Mr. Hooker’s study…even without the data set.

    Congratulations Reuben.

Comments are closed.