Dr. Egilman,
Thank you for your note. Let me do a little more digging into this. I will
talk to a couple of more colleagues and see what avenues we might pursue.
Have you discussed the situation with the Annals of Occupational Hygiene
where McDonald et al presented a "re-analysis"?
Sincerely,
Christine Pearce
________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>> "david egilman" <degilman2@yahoo.com> 12/10/01 03:31PM >>>
Just to be clear the two articles McDonald cited are fine. In the
science letter which you published he misrepresented the contents of
those articles. It is Science that misrepresented the truth not the
other journals. I assume you do not care; this is a shame. I care that
millions of workers are being exposed to asbestos as a result and many
will die as a result of this "error".
-----Original Message-----
From: david egilman [mailto:degilman2@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 11:55 PM
To: 'Christine Pearce'
Subject: RE: Response
Please don't bother on my account. I do not want to be accused of
harassing your journal. I will pay for full a page ad & publish it
myself. The Annals of Occupational Hygiene is completely corrupt &
controlled by McDonald & his friends. He was made the editorial writer
4 years ago. Again it is Science that published a fraudulent paper.
Science has the imprimatur of legitimacy.
The "re-analysis" published in Annals has nothing to do with McDonald's
misrepresentation in Science; the data he reported in Science isn't in
the "re-analysis".
Since McDonald mis-cited a reference in a Science article/letter, it
seems you have "authority" to ask him to correct the record. His
secretary acknowledged my letter to him & he won't answer me.
Please let me know as soon as possible since McDonald and his cohorts
are using the Science letter to push asbestos in the third world, to
prevent widows fom being compensated for the deaths of their husbands
and to block regulations all over the world.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christine Pearce [mailto:cpearce@aaas.org]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 6:20 PM
To: degilman2@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Response
Dr. Egilman,
Thank you for your note. Let me do a little more digging into this. I
will talk to a couple of more colleagues and see what avenues we might
pursue. Have you discussed the situation with the Annals of Occupational
Hygiene where McDonald et al presented a "re-analysis"?
Sincerely,
Christine Pearce
>>> "david egilman" <degilman2@yahoo.com> 12/10/01 03:31PM >>>
Just to be clear the two articles McDonald cited are fine. In the
science letter which you published he misrepresented the contents of
those articles. It is Science that misrepresented the truth not the
other journals. I assume you do not care; this is a shame. I care that
millions of workers are being exposed to asbestos as a result and many
will die as a result of this "error".
David Egilman MD, MPH
Clinical Associate Professor Department of Community Health Brown
University Member Board of Directors Cricare 759 Granite Street
Braintree, Ma 02184 781-848-1950 ext 15 fax 425-699-7033
degilman2@yahoo.com http://www.egilman.com <http://www.egilman.com/>
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlene King [mailto:cking@aaas.org]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 2:07 PM
To: degilman2@yahoo.com
Cc: cpearce@aaas.org
Subject: Response
December 10, 2001
Dear Dr. Egilman;
Thank you for informing us of the situation regarding citations by
McDonald et al. in their 1995 letter we published; however, we do not
have really any authority to address this matter. It is the journals of
your references 2 through 10 where the data was supposedly published
that you need to contact. You could also contact the institutions where
McDonald et al. are now.
Should this matter come to a resolution such that a correction or
clarification is warranted in relation to either of the 2 references
cited by McDonald et al. in their Science letter (vol. 267, p. 776
(1995)), we will certainly do so.
Sincerely,
Christine M. Pearce
________________________________________________________________________
Daryl Anderson [danderso@aaas.org]
_________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
That is correct. We would not choose to accept this ad in the classified section or elsewhere in the journal.Just to be clear Science is rejecting this for all types of ads and is refusing to publish a blank page that i will pay for with the following:
Go to www.egilman.com to see what Science refused to put on this page.
Daryl Anderson <danderso@aaas.org> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________