Your letter has been forwarded to me.
Do you wish us to consider this as a letter to the editor for publication in our journal?
Also, all letters to the editor are subject to editing for length, style and format. Unlike the Institute of Medicine, we welcome scientific debate and investigation. Derogatory and/or ad hominem elements, however,
will be omitted.
If you wish us to consider this as a letter to the editor for publication, please provide us with a statement regarding disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest and tell us something about your qualifications in the area of vaccinations,
mercury toxicity and epidemiology.
L.R. Huntoon, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.A.N.
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
I have replied with the following:
Dear Mr. Huntoon:
No, my primary intention was not to have a letter to the editor published in your Journal. I simply would like my concerns to be addressed and answered in some way, preferably by having your peer reviewers contact CDDS directly to verify if the data presented in the paper reflects reality. The issue with the "New Cases" terminology is well known, non-trivial and documented by CDDS itself. It's not something I just came up with. By way of analogy, imagine that a peer-reviewed Journal publishes a paper on population growth where the authors define "Number of Births" as the difference in the population one year minus that of the previous year. Furthermore, the paper might argue, the "Number of Births" in Germany per year is below zero now. Would you agree or not that such a paper would need to be retracted? I look forward to your response.
This has nothing to do with credentials or conflict of interest, as I am not arguing about methodological flaws or discussing the paper's interpretation of facts. I am simply pointing out that there appears to exist a well-known terminology error in the paper.
P.S. I am copying CDDS and will also be blogging this.
Comments or suggestions?