For the people interested in the McCann case, what do you think of this scientific article?

Question

http://www.livescience.com/health/070917_bad_missing_kids.html

Ceasars wife: I didn't know she said that until they were being interviewed and considered suspects, please provide a link to the article that states that. I would like to read that.

Sam J
Please provide some links to other smear campaigns that the author of this article has done, I would also be interested in reading those. Thanks.

I'm afraid I disagree, nowhere in the article did it mention Kate and Gerry, only referred to them as "the parents" of Madeline McCann. Also with the world wide recognition of this case due mostly to the McCanns, I think livescience only came up with the story as an interest., no where on the livescience home page, (where I linked to the story) did it say, Kate and Gerry, or The McCanns, or anything of the sort. I simply noticed the title "Most dangerous thing to kids:Parents". As well as the end of the story it states:

"Of course, simply being named a suspect in an investigation by itself means little. Police must explore all possibilities, and all suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Still, if a child is missing, the odds are that one or both of the parents may be involved. Madeleine McCann may in fact be alive and well somewhere; hopefully she—and her parents—beat the odds"

I don't see how this is a smear. And the human interest in this saga is overwhelming.

So to attack someones credibility, and say he's a smear campaginer, and "bad scientist" is totally unfounded. Just because you don't like the article.

tet...: FYI
Benjamin Radford is managing editor of two science magazines, The Skeptical Inquirer and the Spanish-language Pensar. He has written over 300 articles on various topics, including urban legends, mass hysteria, mysterious creatures, and media criticism. His columns appear in the Corrales Comment newspaper and Skeptical Inquirer, as well as on the Web at Livescience.com and CSICOP.org. Radford has appeared on The Discovery Channel, CNN, National Geographic Television, the Learning Channel, and the Discovery Science Channel.

Furthermore I'm sure if a study was published by the CDC it would have peer reviewed at that time in 2002, that's why we can refer to it now. It's been reviewed. We're not talking about undocumented theories like Global warming. We talking about well documented cases.

heres one

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5109a3.htm

and heres another
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_murder

Sam J.
I am quite aware who Kate aqnd Gerry are. I see them everyday as do all my relatives who are spread all over the world. This article was written to due to the global interest in the case, of which Kate and Gerry are 100% responsible for due to their media campaign that they started. So there case was referenced in the article. Perhaps you don't know what the definition of "smear campaign" is. I'll tell you. Noun- "a plan to discredit a public figure by making false or dubious accusations" No where in that article were there any accusations dubious, false or otherwise. Just the opposite, so I still disagree.
What journal are you talking about??
Someone asked for reference material, I found it and provided a link. So if you are refering to the CDC link all I have to ask is. If the CDC said "a study has shown that E.Coli kills", would go out and eat rotten meat?

Next simpleton rebuttal.

Answer 1

Horrible isn't it. I was aware of the stats though. I don't really know what to say, it's just plain sad.

Ceaser's wife, Honestly I had to say something here. So kate expected it to be that way if it didn't involve looking at her? Why when they questioned her did she state she was being framed? That made her look like a complete fool. Had no problems with the police, until the spotlight was on her for being questioned. The funniest is that she wasn't even charged, just questioned and she comes out with that. Panic much? For what? All parents are looked at with missing children cases especially if certain evidence is found, though it seems the mccann's believe they should remain exempt from this, they need to wake up just as the rest of the world does.

Answer 2

This is a well known fact, and even Kate McCann said in an interview, long before they were named as suspects, that she expected it and welcomed it if the investigation was to be thorough.
Of course, we shouldn't allow ourselves to be blinkered. The statics apply generally, and not in every case.

Edit: It was a radio interview, I think with Jenny Murray.

Answer 3

Benjamin Radford is a mischievous smear campaigner and a bad scientist.Statistics need evidence to point the finger of guilt .It is a bit like saying a person of 20 is THE cause of an accident just because most accidents are caused by young people. Get real

Nick c
The article itself is a smear, to mention the McCanns in the same article as statistics showing that many parents are responsible for attacks on their own children is a smear, So he is a smear campaigner. The McCanns have suffered enough from people like this, lies damn lies and statistics.

How many blacks have been arrested for murder because of statistics? I repeat to mention the McCanns in such an article is a smear, just what the Yahoo Answers smear campaign was looking for.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nick c Gobbledygook:
"I'm afraid I disagree, nowhere in the article did it mention Kate and Gerry, only referred to them as "the parents" of Madeline McCann." LOL

Perhaps you do not realise that the "parents" of Madeline McCann ARE called Kate and Gerry,LOL

By the way the journal is NOT a scientific journal, it has about as much scientific status as Yahoo Answers, namely none

Answer 4

scientific article! This is not a peer reviewed scientific journal and the journal is not even indexed.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/tsd/serials/lji.html
Ben Bradford is a self proclaimed sceptical inquirer and investigates the paranormal amongst other things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Radford
There is nothing scientific about this article. It's badly structured, unreferenced and not peer reviewed.

Answer 5

Very good article, certainly opens your eyes after all the stories in the media and makes you realise why they are now looking at the parents.

Answer 6

Scientific article. ? Do you call that a scientific article?How Journalists, Activists, and Advertisers like Benjamin Radford, Mislead Us" LOL

Answer 7

I do hope the pro McCanns are reading this article.

To blindly support the main suspects in a child's disappearance is obscene!!!!

Answer 8

Good article. In the absence of any conclusive evidence, the parents have to be prime suspects (which they are).

Answer 9

Yes- wonder if Richard Branson read this?

Answer 10

omg that was very interesting to read.