JG sends info about more wacky new medical studies. This study looked at studies about school anti-violence programs, and found that only those who were claiming to have an effective anti-violence program bothered to publish results. That's all. Is anyone surprised by that?

The programs that were allegedly effective involved silliness like "training in nonresponse skills". It claimed to be applicable to the following factoid: "Each year, 1 in 25 US schoolchildren are victims of violent crime while at school or on the way to and from school." No source was given for this statistic. But the study really doesn't apply to violent injuries anyway, because it says, "Of the 44 trials identified, none reported data on violent injuries."

The same journal issue has other silly articles, such as one that concluded that "The information provided [by gun dealers] was often inconsistent with the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics." Well I hope so! The AAP thinks that no one should have any guns. The gun dealers know more about guns than the AAP.

The journal issue has another wacky gun study. It quizzed parents about safety measures like capping electrical outlets and keeping a handgun in the home. What is the point of this? Are they surprised that some people would do both? I don't know why not. They are both safety measures. Capping outlets protects against electrical shocks, and having a handgun protects against intruders.

Another study complained that 20% of pediatric resident physicans (in a survey) do not counsel anyone on firearm safety. That means 80% do. I wonder how many of them even know anything about firearm safety. If my pediatrician asked me about guns, I'd ask him what kind he has. If he doesn't have a gun, I would start to worry about his competence.