Ah! Pardon my mistake, I thought you talking about the 1998 fraud where they claimed false link between vaccines and autism.

Changes almost nothing about my message tho:

Still cool, when the journal does not deny something being being disproved by more studies, and retracts the paper without denialism and ideological protecting

Still that's why I trust meta-analyses more than single studies.

Still, if you want to hear sources with no history of fraud, I can send them. Perhaps two mistakes in 25 years is actually too much for a journal to be trustable.