In October 2017, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) added to the weight of evidence they care more about media attention than science by publishing a "Letter" claiming that glyphosate was detected in urine. Their media bait worked. For example, a journalist at TIME rewrote the press release and used Paul Mills, the lead author and adjunct at a California university for a quote, without bothering to use Google for five seconds and learn his degree came from Maharishi University of Management in Iowa, which teaches transcendental meditation and yoga and is not a legitimate school for anything scientific.
To help TIME out with future articles, I wrote about other similarly cosmic papers by Mills they could cover but that is not the point here. The point is that they dismiss conflicts of interest when the entire paper was rubbish - and that they engaged in conflicts of interest and used JAMA to sell their products are more weight of evidence they are suffering from an existential threat to their credibility.
Only [April 3rd] did JAMA finally correct the record, burying it way over in one of the tabs.
[H]ere is how JAMA soft-pedals a CoI disclosure that would be a full-on retraction at a quality journal. Bold mine.
Read full, original post: Urine, Glyphosate And JAMA: Conflicts Of Interest Bordering On Fraud Should Be Retracted