Talk:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
From RationalWiki
Contents |
[edit] Missing words?
In "the journal considered a valid, peer-reviewed journal for inclusion in major scientific databases", are the words "is not" missing? --jtltalk 15:39, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
Nice job. If it quacks like a duck ducks like a quack... humanbe in 02:59, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
[edit] Exposed on CP
- The CP Police just found my less than flattering version about the [[Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons]]. It is now described as the independent peer-reviewed medical journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons which is criticised by liberals who may dislike the data and results presented. Amazing that it survived over a month.
- Auld Nick 04:26, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
- very nice, kudos Damo2353 01:42, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
[edit] WHO
I can't seem to find anything about the WHO considering it a source of concern, just a review of one of their articles on vaccination. I'd like to remove the WHO reference and leave that sentence with Quackwatch listing it as a nonrecommended periodical. That sound okay to everyone? -Smyth 13:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- How about we take the WHO thing and make it its own short paragraph? Reading the source now... humanbe in 17:27, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- About their reaction to the JPandS article? That'd be fine. Or do you have a source for their not considering it a credible journal? -Smyth 17:30, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- The former. IOW, I agree that the WHO ref should not be part of the sentence it is, but their coverage of the JPS article is pretty scathing for a bunch of bureaucrats. humanbe in 17:40, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- Agreed. They were pretty diplomatic about it. I'd be happy to write something about it, but it'll have to wait for tomorrow. If you're interested, that'd be cool too. -Smyth 17:53, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- The former. IOW, I agree that the WHO ref should not be part of the sentence it is, but their coverage of the JPS article is pretty scathing for a bunch of bureaucrats. humanbe in 17:40, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- About their reaction to the JPandS article? That'd be fine. Or do you have a source for their not considering it a credible journal? -Smyth 17:30, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
[edit] AMA
Does anyone have any material about how the AAPS gets along with the AMA? Particularly, I know that the AMA has been supporting LGBT rights for awhile now, and that certainly can't sit well with the AAPS... --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 23:55, 10 January 2008 (EST)
[edit] Blogged
Nice blog entry about the AAPS on Respectful Insolence
[edit] Andrew S
Lot's of interesting things come up if you google "Association of American Physicians and Surgeons" Schlafly --BobNot Jim 21:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

