Saturday, October 15, 2011

Mayo Clinic Finds Massive Fraud In Cancer Research

Original Link

New Discovery Shakes the Foundation of Cancer Research

Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 15 2011 | 33,082 views

cancer research fraud
Story at-a-glance
  • Two widely cited, published cancer research studies contain fabricated data, will be retracted
  • The Mayo Clinic concluded that data about harnessing the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated, resulting in the retraction of 17 papers in nine research journals
  • Cancer research in the United States needs to be scrutinized, as much is money-driven and based on developing new drugs

By Dr. Mercola

In a scandal that has reverberated around the world of cancer research, the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S. Department of Health found that a Boston University cancer scientist fabricated his findings. His work was published in two journals in 2009, and he’s been ordered to retract them. But important studies by other scientists like those at the Mayo Clinic, who based their work on his findings, could now make 10 years of their studies worthless, according to commentary in Gaia Health.

It seems fairly evident that the cancer industrial complex is a highly lucrative, well-oiled system that tends to support funding for expensive drug treatments that don't address the cause of the problem, and have yet to make a significant dent in the decrease of the overall cancer rate in the US despite investing hundreds of billions of dollars. Much of the support comes from flawed and biased "research" studies that support the use of expensive drugs as detailed in the featured articles.

Researchers, too, are well aware of the notoriety and money to be found in cancer research … particularly what may be deemed successful cancer research (which unfortunately is often measured by the discovery of new drug treatments). But, as with many areas of medical research, it's important to read between the lines of "scientifically proven" studies, even those that are well accepted.

Often what you'll find is the research gives the perception of science when really it is a heavily manipulated process designed to control and deceive. Case in point, here again we have an example of widely accepted, published research that turned out to be fabricated.

10 Years of Cancer Research Down the Drain

The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the U.S. Department of Health reported in August 2011 that final action has been taken against Sheng Wang, PhD, of Boston University School of Medicine, Cancer Research Center. ORI states:

"The Respondent engaged in research misconduct by fabricating data that were included in two (2) published papers."

This includes:

  • Oncogene February 2009, which found that HIC1, a protein thought to suppress tumor growth, is a "central molecule in a novel mechanism controlling cell growth and that the disruption of this HIC1-mediated pathway may lead to abnormal cell proliferation and, ultimately, cancer."
  • Molecular Endocrinology December 2009, which found "reintroducing HIC1 into resistant breast cancer cells restored their sensitivity to the estrogen antagonists, indicating the existence of a novel regulatory mechanism for growth control of breast cancer cells."

Specifically, six of the eight figures in the Oncogene paper and six of the seven figures in the Molecular Endocrinology study were said to contain data from fabricated experiments. Though Wang is now required to retract the papers, and he reportedly stopped working for Boston University in July, he will only be ineligible for federal funding for 2 years.

Further, the fabricated research may continue to live on, as it has been cited by other studies and once a finding is accepted in the medical community, it's very hard to make it go away. Unfortunately, scientific retractions are actually becoming increasingly common.

As the Wall Street Journal reported:

"Just 22 retraction notices appeared in 2001, but 139 in 2006 and 339 last year. Through seven months of this year, there have been 210, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, an index of 11,600 peer-reviewed journals world-wide …

At the Mayo Clinic, a decade of cancer research, partly taxpayer-funded, went down the drain when the prestigious Minnesota institution concluded that intriguing data about harnessing the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated. Seventeen scholarly papers published in nine research journals had to be retracted. A researcher, who protests his innocence, was fired. In another major flameout, 18 research journals have said they are planning to retract a total of 89 published studies by a German anesthesiologist …"



read more at here...

1 comment:

  1. Um...

    His work was published in two journals in 2009, and he’s been ordered to retract them. But important studies by other scientists like those at the Mayo Clinic, who based their work on his findings, could now make 10 years of their studies worthless

    I was very confused by this, how was he published in 2009 but it impacted 10 years of research?

    "According to Google Scholar, the Oncogene paper had been cited 13 times in journal articles by other scientists, and the Molecular Endocrinology paper had been cited twice"

    So this seems to be an rather narrow impact. I highly question this "Dr. Mercola" - who is quoting from "Gaia Health" (seriously)??? BTW THAT article was revised, says:

    http://gaia-health.com/articles501/000510-drug-study-corruption.shtml

    Note: The title has been changed. It originally read "Cancer Research of 10 Years Useless: Fraudulent Studies, Says Mayo Clinic", giving the impression that the Mayo Clinic made the statement that ten years of studies had been lost. The Mayo Clinic acknowledged that 17 studies, going back to 2002, involving a single cancer topic were fraudulent. However, the Clinic did not state that that 10 years of research were lost, though it can readily be inferred by the nature of the studies, how frequently they were cited, and how they formed the basis of an entire line of research.

    So, ok -- his studies and a few others in specific topic area does not support the conclusion that this fraud is rampant or that it has had more than a small impact. Not every study that cites his paper will be impacted either, only if it had contingent claims.

    It's important to note that merely being published is NOT an endorsement of the paper.

    If the results haven't been independently validated then it's only a tentative claim. Error (not to mention fraud) happens in EVERY human enterprise but the scientific establishment has the most rigorous standards to try to help prevent it & minimize it - to the greatest extent possible (and replication is a key part of this safeguard). I welcome the increase in rejections and retractions as evidence that people are working diligently.

    And I think scientists need to be more careful about demanding replication for key results.

    It is also important to remember that just because the papers were retracted doesn't mean that they were incorrect in their conclusions - but they will have to be retested.

    In short, I find this article to be extremely misleading and hyperbolic, at best.

    ReplyDelete