[HN Gopher] Research at the heart of a federal case against the ...
___________________________________________________________________
Research at the heart of a federal case against the abortion pill
retracted
Author : everybodyknows
Score : 38 points
Date : 2024-02-09 18:51 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (text.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (text.npr.org)
| some_random wrote:
| Are there any documents laying out the specific issues found in
| the papers? It sounds like there's a lot wrong with them but I'm
| curious how much worse than your median paper they actually are.
| There are a lot of politically motivated studies that could be
| argued to have unsupported assumptions and present data in a
| misleading way that have not been retracted.
|
| Here's the retraction itself:
| https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23333928231216699
| idoubtit wrote:
| It's not only about fake science, don't forget the authors and
| a reviewer lied about their affiliations and conflicts of
| interest. When a Journal Editor and a publisher realize that
| they were deceived by plain lies, I would expect them to react
| as strongly as they did.
| some_random wrote:
| Of course, but that's all pretty clear cut (at least in this
| example) and well spelled out in the retraction.
| vundercind wrote:
| There are some specifics about which parts of the paper had
| problems, but I can't _find_ the original paper to see how
| those parts look (failed to find at libgen, doesn't seem to
| be open-access from what I can tell)
| csnover wrote:
| There is some additional detail in the reporting from Ars
| Technica[0]:
|
| > The study looked at all emergency department visits, not only
| visits related to abortion. This could capture medical care
| beyond abortion-related conditions, because people on Medicaid
| often lack primary care and resort to going to emergency
| departments for routine care. When the researchers tried to
| narrow down the visits to just those related to abortion, they
| included medical codes that were not related to abortion, such
| as codes for ectopic pregnancy, and they didn't capture the
| seriousness of the condition that prompted the visit.
| Medication abortions can cause bleeding, and women can go to
| the emergency department if they don't know what amount of
| bleeding is normal. The study also counted multiple visits from
| the same individual patient as multiple visits, likely
| inflating the numbers. Last, the study did not put the data in
| context of emergency department use by Medicaid beneficiaries
| in general over the time period.
|
| [0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/anti-abortion-
| groups...
| golemotron wrote:
| It's a good thing science isn't politicized. If it was this
| retraction would be suspect too.
| striking wrote:
| If you're implying that the retraction is suspect, could you
| point out a particular section?
| metabagel wrote:
| On what grounds?
| kergonath wrote:
| Gaming the process this blatantly is ground for immediate
| retraction in any sane journal. Politics do not matter at this
| point. This sort of things happens regularly for many papers,
| not only papers some people happen to find convenient in their
| misguided arguments.
| twh270 wrote:
| Everything in the human sphere is 'politicized', but that
| doesn't mean politics is the only game in town, i.e. that all
| science is politicized and thus the retraction should be
| assumed to be political.
| 303uru wrote:
| Everyone in the pharmacy/pharma world saw this coming. Everyone.
| I'm sure our super not corrupt SCOTUS will reverse their ruling
| any day.
| samatman wrote:
| There's at least one bit of total nonsense in here, namely this:
|
| > _The decision that overturned Roe v. Wade is an example, she
| says. "The majority [opinion] relied pretty much exclusively on
| scholars with some ties to pro-life activism and didn't really
| cite anybody else even or really even acknowledge that there was
| a majority scholarly position or even that there was meaningful
| disagreement on the subject."_
|
| I read Dobbs v. Jackson in its entirety, including the dissent.
| This statement is not-even-wrong, in that the decision was given
| based on the proper limits of federal power, and whether a right
| to an abortion was something which could be derived from the
| Constitution and relevant case law. It had nothing to do with
| scholarly opinions on abortion at all.
|
| Disagreeing with the decision of the court isn't license to make
| things up like this.
| vundercind wrote:
| It may hold if we read that as meaning _in places where the
| opinion cites scholars_. That is, when it relies on scholars,
| it cites only a minority scholarly view with no mention of the
| majority.
|
| And I see a handful of citations in the notes of the majority
| opinion that appear to be just that, though admittedly not
| many. Not sure if there are any others written into the body
| text such that they didn't need to be footnotes.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-09 23:01 UTC)