No, Beecher’s paper has been discredited. A paper get’s discredited when the editor states that it should not passed peer review. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. As I said, it would not last 2 seconds in court now.
It was a stupid stunt in the first place.
You mean like what the Editor of Science Magazine, Don Kennedy, wrote me back in January of 2006? He wrote this about Gary Matsumoto's article:
That was a News article; it didn't report original research, and the authors of News articles report views of the science as they have found it following investigation. This often sparks disagreements.
So, the article printed in Science magazine was a "News article" and not a science article? And "it didn't report original research"?
Does that mean the editor of Science magazine considers it to be "discredited?"