George writes:

Why shouldn't the JAMA article be considered academic fraud? The data was concealed and misrepresented. Honest researchers try to publish articles that accurately reflect their findings. The whole point of the article was to describe 22 web sites that fit a certain definition. If none of those web sites met the definition, and the authors withheld the necessary evidence, then the article is a fraud.

I discussed this JAMA article on antivaccination web sites here and here.

I try to give the authors the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the authors are so brainwashed by the medical establishment that they think that anyone who is not endorsing the official vaccine recommendations must be an enemy of medicine.

Still, the JAMA article is misleading and irresponsible. The main point is that so-called anti-vaccination web sites often "rely heavily on emotional appeal to convey their message". But so do many pro-vaccination web sites, such as this.