...and Procter & Gamble keeps hiding (data, that is). To very briefly summarize, Blumsohn would like P & G to retract a misleading (at best) paper and provide the journal in which the data were published with relevant study data, yet P & G refuses to do so. As Blumsohn states in his latest post "As stated, the main purpose of this letter is to revisit your earlier refusal to allow the data provided in April to be scrutinized in an open manner. Your refusal to allow the data to be transmitted to a journal editor accompanying a properly corrected manuscript is not appropriate. A journal editor can request raw data from an author at any time, and such refusal (particularly under the circumstances of this case) would be inappropriate." Basically, the evidence indicates that the P & G data are incorrect in the published report referenced by Blumsohn. And not just off by a bit -- we're talking a drastic difference here!
In addition, the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (where the disputed paper was published) appears to have handled the situation quite poorly, as they continue to drag their feet on retracting the manuscript (see here and here) despite a good deal of evidence (here, for example) that the manuscript was fraudulent.
Spread the word, folks! This stinks on many levels and those involved should receive as much negative publicity as possible. Hopefully, added attention will lead P & G to start behaving responsibly. Blumsohn has voluminous documentation regarding this case at his site, which I think everyone should be reading regularly. Check out his latest post for a copy of his latest letter to P & G:
Scientific Misconduct Blog: Procter & Gamble - Let's take the high road
Psychiatric medications, science, marketing, psychiatry in general, and occasionally clinical psychology. Questioning the role of key opinion leaders and the use of "science" to promote commercial ends rather than the needs of people with mental health concerns.
Actonel almost kill me.
ReplyDelete