[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Citations 0
January 15, 2003

The Cincinnati Radiation Tests

JAMA. 2003;289(3):301-302. doi:10.1001/jama.289.3.301-a

In Reply: Dr Stephens claims that I have misrepresented her book and made factual errors in my review. I did not claim that the book "lacks" or is devoid of a description or analysis of the Cincinnati radiation study. What I said was that I "expected a thorough description and analysis of the Cincinnati study and a balanced presentation of the issues." For instance, appendix I provides minimal technical information about the study subjects. Stephens describes the cancers by anatomic site only, without information about diagnosis and staging. A systematic analysis of informed consent, ie, what the subjects were told and not told, was not provided. Stephens also limits the discussion to a selected group of patients; about two thirds of the study group is not discussed at all.