A medical journal says the case reports it has published for 25 years are, in fact, fiction

[UpInArms]

A Canadian journal has issued corrections on 138 case reports it published over the last 25 years to add a disclaimer: The cases described are fictional.

Paediatrics & Child Health, the journal of the Canadian Paediatric Society, has published the cases since 2000 in articles for a series for its Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program. The articles usually start with a case description followed by “learning points” that include statistics, clinical observations and data from CPSP. The peer-reviewed articles don’t state anywhere the cases described are fictional.

The corrections come following a January article in New Yorker magazine that mentioned one of the reports — “Baby boy blue,” a case published in 2010 describing an infant who showed signs of opioid exposure via breast milk while his mother was taking acetaminophen with codeine. The New Yorker article made public an admission by one of the coauthors that the case was made up.

“Based on the New Yorker article, we made the decision to add a correction notice to all 138 publications drawing attention to CPSP studies and surveys to clarify that the cases are fictional,” Joan Robinson, editor-in-chief of Paediatrics & Child Health, told Retraction Watch. “From now on, the body of the case report will specifically state that the case is fictional.”

… snip …

“Readers of primary source peer reviewed medical scientific journals have an absolute right to believe that the article being read is as accurate as possible, original, and factual, unless clearly specified otherwise,” said former JAMA editor George Lundberg. “‘Alternative facts,’ as popularized by Kellyanne Conway, have no place in a medical or scientific journal.”

More at:

https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/03/canadian-pediatric-society-journal-correction-case-reports-fictional-paediatrics-child-health/

[hlthe2b]

1. Any physician who takes anecdotal case reports at faith and makes decisions accordingly..

is a quack anyway. Physicians, veterinarians, dentists, and other clinical professionals should have had it drilled into them to make decisions based on peer-reviewed literature and published standard of care guidelines-- with Meta-Analyses of clinical trials and well-reviewed epidemiological observational studies likewise to be considered. Not a single "case" study.

So, while this will and should appall the general public, I have faith that most providers will not be paying much attention to these anecdotal accounts other than as an "oddity."