Talk:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Missing words?[edit]

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)

Don't know how i f'd that up. Thanks. --PalMD-Talk 15:41, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Nice job. If it quacks like a duck ducks like a quack... humanbe in 02:59, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Exposed on CP[edit]

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)
See cp:Talk:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
Very nice, kudos Damo2353 01:42, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

WHO[edit]

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. '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)

AMA[edit]

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)

Blogged[edit]

Nice blog entry about the AAPS on Respectful Insolence

Andrew S[edit]

Lots of interesting things come up if you google "Association of American Physicians and Surgeons" Schlafly --BobNot Jim 21:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice blog article[edit]

Well-referenced, good to crib from: [1] - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And of course it's already in the external links. Don't mind me - David Gerard (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh well. Thanks for playing. Conservative Punk (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad reference?[edit]

I have been reading up on Dr. Russell Blaylock for most of the morning after watching his Nutrition and Behavior video. With regards to what you said about Blaylock, he is listed at Quackwatch (although in name only, there is no article describing the ways in which he is misleading or confused; also, Quackwatch does not dispute his credentials). The specific line about him is as follows:

Russell Blaylock, M.D., member of the editorial staff. Publishes the Blaylock Wellness Report. Flagged by Quackwatch,[26] among others.[27]

Reference 26 ([2]) is certainly to the Quackwatch page (although a search of the site rather than a specific page he is called out on, another Blaylock is listed there as well...), but reference 27 ([3]) says nothing about Blaylock. So, I am removing reference 27. -Kevin (find my email at my personal page, hlzr.net should you like to chat about this with me)— Unsigned, by: 68.101.218.113 / talk / contribs

Fun fact[edit]

Rather ironically, "aap" is Dutch for "ape". : )
Well, more precisely, "aap" can refer to any furry member of Haplorhini and "mensaap" ("mens" being Dutch for "human") is used specifically for apes. 84.198.53.190 (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Silver?[edit]

I think that, with some polish (and general updating/expanding), this page might have a shot at silver. Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)