Click bait garbage that's somewhere between intellectually dishonest and outright fraud. The New Scientist article [0] Mother Jones cites [1] discusses a meta a

Click bait garbage that's somewhere between intellectually dishonest and outright fraud. The New Scientist article [0] Mother Jones cites [1] discusses a meta analysis on whether women's preferences in mates change over the course of their cycle [2] (the referenced analysis says it does not), then makes an unwarranted leaping reference to Mcclintock's 1971 work on menstral cycle synchronization in humans [3], and implies the meta analysis invalidates it. It doesn't. The meta analysis was on possible mate preference changes, not cycle synchronization. [0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2102956-do-women-sync-up-no-but-we-cant-resist-menstruation-myths/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2102956-do-women-sync-u... [1] http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/menstrual-syncing-baloney http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/menstrual-syncin... [2] http://m.emr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/24/1754073914523073.abstract http://m.emr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/24/1754073914... [3] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v229/n5282/abs/229244a0.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v229/n5282/abs/229244a0...