Talk:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 5 November 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Missing words?

In "the journal considered a valid, peer-reviewed journal for inclusion in major scientific databases", are the words "is not" missing? --jtl^talk 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... human^{be in} 02:59, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

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)

See cp:Talk:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Very nice, kudos Damo2353 01:42, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

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... human^{be 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. human^{be 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

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

Nice blog entry about the AAPS on Respectful Insolence ^{— Unsigned, by: Worm / talk / contribs} Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)