6 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2018
    1. On 2013 Oct 25, DAVID SANDERS commented:

      It has been argued that this article should be retracted on the basis of analysis of the statistical data presented in it.

      http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/despite-refutation-science-arsenic-life-paper-deserves-retraction-scientist-argues

      http://www.periodicplayground.com/blog/bp/2013/02/guest-post-david-sanders-why-its-high-time-to-retract-arseniclife


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    2. On 2013 Oct 23, Pedro Mendes commented:

      Apart from the many comments that have appeared in the journal Science (listed above), Basturea GN, 2012 is also relevant in this discussion.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    3. On 2013 Oct 22, DAVID SANDERS commented:

      None


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

  2. Feb 2018
    1. On 2013 Oct 22, DAVID SANDERS commented:

      None


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    2. On 2013 Oct 23, Pedro Mendes commented:

      Apart from the many comments that have appeared in the journal Science (listed above), Basturea GN, 2012 is also relevant in this discussion.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    3. On 2013 Oct 25, DAVID SANDERS commented:

      It has been argued that this article should be retracted on the basis of analysis of the statistical data presented in it.

      http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/despite-refutation-science-arsenic-life-paper-deserves-retraction-scientist-argues

      http://www.periodicplayground.com/blog/bp/2013/02/guest-post-david-sanders-why-its-high-time-to-retract-arseniclife


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.