a number of russians disaffected by the invasion and the war in ukraine. it is not clear if these things are linked, but the timing is certainly interesting stuff we will get some analysis of that, i m sure, very shortly. an investigation by bbc newsnight and the british medicaljournal has uncovered a row over controversial research regarding the impact of abortion on the mental health of women. an independent panel resigned from the britishjournal of psychiatry after their recommendation to withdraw the research, which is still being used in us legal cases restricting abortion access, was not followed. newsnight s science correspondent, kate lamble, reports. this decision must not stand! we will abolish abortion! legal threats to uk publishers may be having a ripple effect on major us health care decisions. in 2011, us psychologist professor priscilla coleman produced research concluding women who d had an abortion have an 81% increased risk of mental health problems.
by the political nature of the topic, something the complainants deny. would you consider yourself pro choice? i would. do you think that has played. that is not the issue here. because priscilla coleman s lawyers would say that biased attempt to discredit her work. that is unfair, and there is no, no basis for that, because again, our critique has nothing to do with her findings. i mean, if i would make the same criticism if she found exactly the opposite thing. the issues, the integrity, the science, full stop. newsnight and the bmj have learned that in response to the 2022 complaint, the britishjournal of psychiatry formed an independent panel to investigate. dr alex tsai was asked to join. we obtained feedback from a statistician and a news editor of b] psych to supplement our own investigation.
usually when we critique a meta analysis, maybe four or five of the criteria are met. for a good one, eight to ten are met. i have also never called for the retraction of a paper before, but in this this is a very serious lapse of scientific integrity, in my view. professor littell argues that profesor coleman didn t given enough detail as to how she identified previous research to use, so her work couldn t be replicated. the scientific quality of those studies wasn t clearly assessed, and, littell says, in combining studies to produce an overall average, coleman s method counted the same women multiple times. newsnight has spoken to an independent expert, who agreed there were significant questions as to how this study was conducted. a review co authored by the royal college of psychiatrist, the owner of the journal which published coleman s paper, also found that methodological problems brought into question coleman s results. we should say not all
of the public. in the uk it questions how legal threats may influence science. slightly chilling, really, if science can be shut down that way. i think science should be adjudicated based on science. the two are connected by a scientific paper produced in 2011 by us psychologist professor priscilla coleman. it pulled together previous research to conclude women who have been through an abortion have an 81% increased risk of mental health problems. over the last year, as abortion access has been rolled back across the us, it has been regularly cited by those keen on further restrictions. in april, when a texas court decided one of the two main drugs used for medical abortion in the us, mifepristone, should have its approval suspended, this paper was cited in thejudge s decision. this meta analysis was also cited in the dobbs case in the amicus brief, and the dobbs case of course is what eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion here in the us. amicus briefs are submitted
No, Donald Trump. Murder is murder. The most pro-life president in history decided Tuesday to defend abortion exceptions for rape and incest.
Apparently Trump isn’t aware of the ample evidence that ab.