The journal reported the findings of a case-control study conducted in 1995 by Castilla et al. to determine the association between Downs syndrome and the use of natural family planning (NFP). Researchers collected data on more than 5000 case-control pairs but provided data on only 4925 mothers of malformed infants and 4802 mothers of controls. 6.6% of the former group and 6.0% of the latter were users of NFP. There is considerable potential that sample distortion will result when using the case-control study design one particularly prone to error and bias. The author criticizes Castilla et al. for not defining the source populations exposure category not explaining why data are provided on malformed children when the study objective is trisomy 21 not stating why data are presented on less than 5000 pairs and not explaining the discrepancy between the numbers of cases and controls and how the 476 mothers of babies with Downs syndrome were matched with controls. Castilla et al. also leave it to the reader to make certain calculations provide a chi-square value after writing about 95% confidence intervals with regard to odds ratios and fail to justify a beta of 0.8. Castilla et al.s study and findings should not have been reported in the journal devoid of better analysis and more thorough explanation.