A bit of a mess here:

"A Canadian journal has issued corrections on 138 case reports it published over the last 25 years to add a disclaimer: The cases described are fictional."

"The articles usually start with a case description followed by “learning points” that include statistics, clinical observations and data from CPSP. The peer-reviewed articles don’t state anywhere the cases described are fictional."

"The versions on PubMed Central also do not bear any indication the case reports are fictional."

A medical journal says the case reports it has published for 25 years are, in fact, fiction – Retraction Watch

40 minutes ago, Genady said:

A bit of a mess here:

That is a bit of an understatement.

Holy crap.

"While the instructions for authors for Paediatrics & Child Health has at times indicated the case reports are fictional, that disclosure has never appeared on the journal articles themselves..."

“Every clinical vignette...describes a fictional case, created as a teaching tool and related to a Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program study or survey.”

What is wrong with these people? And also a pie in the face of The Lancet, which published the original baby blue case report in 2006.

They finally wrote an "expression of concern" twenty years later when the New Yorker uncovered the bogus aspects. Juurlink had been trying to get a retraction for six years, but I guess the New Yorker carries more weight than an expert on pediatric toxicology and pharma. 🙄