21 – 30 of 139
- show: 10
- |
- sort: year (new to old)
Close
Embed this list
<iframe src=" "
width=" "
height=" "
allowtransparency="true"
frameborder="0">
</iframe>
- 2017
-
Mark
Retorikens grunder
(
- Book/Report › Book
-
Mark
The scientific evidence regarding retinal haemorrhages. Response to Hellgren et al. and Levin
(
- Contribution to journal › Debate/Note/Editorial
-
Mark
Authors' overarching reply to all the responses received to the systematic literature review on shaken baby syndrome
(
- Contribution to journal › Debate/Note/Editorial
-
Mark
Is accepting circular reasoning in shaken baby studies bad science or misconduct?
(
- Contribution to journal › Article
-
Mark
What are acceptable conclusions? Response to Dr. Ludvigsson
(
- Contribution to journal › Debate/Note/Editorial
-
Mark
The shaken baby syndrome report was not the result of a conspiracy. Response to Dr. Narang et al.
(
- Contribution to journal › Debate/Note/Editorial
-
Mark
Conflicts of interest issues. Response to Lucas et al.
(
- Contribution to journal › Debate/Note/Editorial
-
Mark
A misunderstanding. Response to Dr Bilo et al.
(
- Contribution to journal › Debate/Note/Editorial
-
Mark
Insufficient evidence for 'shaken baby syndrome' - a systematic review
(
- Contribution to journal › Scientific review
- 2016
-
Mark
Unintentional Nonhunting Firearm Deaths in Sweden, 1983–2012
(
- Contribution to journal › Article