Clinical Neuropsychologist abstract

[Guest guest]

Hey I thought you might enjoy what I wrote. I sure enjoyed writing it. : )

Lori

Dear Doctors Sweet and Bauer,

I have read recently the abstract with the title: " Has the rolling uterus

finally gathered moss? Somatization and malingering

of cognitive deficit in six cases of 'toxic mold' exposure. "

I am very confused by this abstract and especially by the title which

accompanies it. Six is a very small number of subjects to be printed in a

peer-reviewed journal such as yours. In addition, the title implies that these

were all female subjects. Is this true? If so, why didn't the authors include

male subjects when making such conclusions? Certainly there are male patients

who claim neuropsychological effects from mold exposure.

It seems there is an incredible amount of bias in the selection of cases and the

literature review presented here. The authors seem to be quite obviously using

their own point of view to frame the basis of the discussion. Such a biased

presentation has no place in a peer-reviewed journal, unless you have eschewed

evidence-based articles in favor of editorials disguised as science.

Whether all six subjects were female or not, referring to the " rolling uterus "

is chauvinistic, offensive and shows a blatant misogynic tendency. Shame on you

and your colleagues for allowing the article to be printed at all but especially

for coming up with such a title and printing it in your journal. I hope you

will consider all of this when you retract the article.