This article contained factual inaccuracies and is very irresponsible
in 'debunking' a 'myth' that has been proven to be true - namely that
mobile phones can effect hospital equipment.
As a medical journal, publishing junk that some half-arsed researcher
found on Google is irresponsible in the extreme, which is compounded when
this is picked up by broadcasters and transmitted as fact.
The research by Dutch scientists into mobile phones and hospital
equipment was published here:
Nothing short of a full apology and a printed retraction will
suffice, and I hope that you reflect on all those doctors reading your
article, who now do not realise that they ARE putting patients lives at
risk – and that your journal is partly responsible for this.
Rapid Response:
stupid and irresponsible
This article contained factual inaccuracies and is very irresponsible
in 'debunking' a 'myth' that has been proven to be true - namely that
mobile phones can effect hospital equipment.
As a medical journal, publishing junk that some half-arsed researcher
found on Google is irresponsible in the extreme, which is compounded when
this is picked up by broadcasters and transmitted as fact.
The research by Dutch scientists into mobile phones and hospital
equipment was published here:
http://ccforum.com/content/11/5/R98
and reported in the New Scientist in September 2007 here:
http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19526214.000-
cellphones-are-an-increasing-danger-in-hospitals.html
Nothing short of a full apology and a printed retraction will
suffice, and I hope that you reflect on all those doctors reading your
article, who now do not realise that they ARE putting patients lives at
risk – and that your journal is partly responsible for this.
Shame on you.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests