Dec 23, 2011
Retraction update + Stapel update + Spiegeloog columns
I am mostly only documenting in this Nederlog.
1. David Tuller in the New York Times
There is a good article by David Tuller in the NYT:
Mr Tuller spoke with dr Mikovits:
Clearly, many other qualified scientists, and the chief-editor of Science, think differently about "how science works", and indeed the chief-editor of Science is convinced the Blood Work Group's article already has shown she "can’t reproduce it".
Mr Tuller quotes Mrs Whittemore:
And he quotes Dr. Lipkin:
The chief-editor of Science clearly did not believe "he retraction was premature". Besides, Lipkin's study does proceed. What dr. Lipkin means by "deserve a full hearing of the data" is not really clear to me, but then I think dr. Lipkin is a diplomatic man.
2. Abbie Smith on ERV Blog
Ms. Smith, who was one of the first to doubt and criticize the science of the now retracted paper in Science wrote another blog about it:
She opens thus - and Bruce Alberts is the chief-editor of Science, while I reproduce her footnote including the link, that indeed helps clarify things:
She also says, and that link to is well worth reading:
3. Diederik Stapel in Vrij Nederland
Then there is the
Dutch data faker
I wrote last about his case on December 6, when the news arrived that his paper in Science had been "fully retracted", by himself indeed:
When I first wrote about his case
I gave a series of reasons why I was interested in that case, and qualified to judge and ended thus
Well, there now is considerable support for this in a long article in Vrij Nederland, a well-know Dutch weekly. It is in Dutch, in what seems to be a series entitled "The web around Stapel":
Hitchhiking with a
master conman, say: How the Dutch data faker
Here are some backgrounds:
There is rather a
lot more on Dutch science and psychology in my Spiegeloog-columns in
both Dutch and English. These were published in 1988-1989 in the
faculty paper of the faculty of psychology of the University of
Amsterdam, and may well have shown the Dutch data faker
These must be by far the most sarcastic and satirical criticism of the University of Amsterdam that has ever been published. I was just one individual then, and have learned what that means, in Holland. Even so, it seems - to me - that, long after the fact, I was right: The academic "education" has become even more lousy than it was, and definitely is no longer university-level.
And readers of Dutch may also derive some education and enjoyment - "lering & vermaak" - from "How do I become a Dutch top bureaucrat?" :
As to ME/CFS (that I prefer to call ME):
Short descriptions of the above:
1. Ten reasons why ME/CFS is a real disease by a professor of medicine of Harvard.
2. Long essay by a professor emeritus of medical chemistry about maltreatment of ME.
3. Explanation of what's happening around ME by an investigative journalist.
4. Report to Canadian Government on ME, by many medical experts.
5. Advice to psychiatrist by a psychiatrist who understands ME is an organic disease
6. English mathematical genius on one's responsibilities in the matter of one's beliefs:
7. A space-
and computer-scientist takes a look at psychology.
See also: ME -Documentation and ME - Resources
The last has many files, all on my site to keep them accessible.
|home - index - top - mail|