Skip to content


    Exciting News for WebMD Members!

    We've been busy behind the scenes building new message boards for you. You'll have new and easier ways to find messages, connect with others, and share your stories.

    And, this will all be available on your smartphone or other mobile device!

    What Do You Need to Do?

    The message board you're used to will be closing in the coming weeks. While many of your boards will be making the move to our new home, your posts will not. Want to keep a discussion going? Save posts you want to continue (this includes your member profile story), so that you can re-post them in the new message boards.

    Keep an eye here and on your email inbox, we'll be back in touch soon to give you all the information you need!

    Yours in health,
    WebMD Message Boards Management

    More Retracted Papers from Cardiology Group
    bobby75703 posted:
    This is sad. Just goes to prove no industry is immune from making deliberate misrepresentations.
    iride6606 responded:
    Wow, 3 papers out of tens of thousands, swayed. How about finishing one thought before we move to another one?
    bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
    This is how we go down the wrong road. No industry is immune from misrepresentations.
    bobby75703 replied to bobby75703's response:
    All it takes is just one falsified paper, and millions of people are effected.
    iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
    No, one falsified paper does not affect millions of people just as one accepted paper does not affect millions of people. No treatments or procedures are changed or implemented over one paper. These types of changes are implemented after extreme examination of the evidence presented by studies and clinical trials by the governing board of each specialty and approved by the appropriate agency of the federal government. There is no way one paper can force a change, that's just not how it works but it would make a great headline, right?
    bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
    Unfortunately it has happened. Either by falsification of data or by omission of data. Especially when a paper has high visibility or prominence. it can effect millions of people.
    iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
    So can you name a prominent or "high visibility" paper that has been retracted that affected millions of people?

    Also, of the 6 papers retracted that were mentioned by Forbes, none were the result of falsification of data or omission of data as your statement would imply. I just read the formal retraction on all and all involved an "enhanced" image that may not have accurately represented the intended image. Not saying it's OK, but it's not falsification of data.

    So please, show us what you have.
    bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
    Yeah, I can cite two examples of this type of thing.

    1) One graph in particular that attracted the world's attention would be Ancel Key's graph depicting an association between dietary fat and death rates for heart disease, comparing different countries.

    Of course the association wasn't real. Keys tossed out data that did not meet his criteria. This is called lying by omission. Had Key's used all the data available, there would be no association whatsoever.

    The study graph was never retracted, but it had an incredible impact and kicked off the low fat diet fad that millions of people to bought into. It was extremely misleading.

    2) Red wine researcher Dipak K Das published fake data. Officials found 145 cases of fabricated or false data. Millions of Americans drank red wine believing the resveratrol in the wine offered cardiovascular protection.
    iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
    Really? Are you really going back to the 1957 Seven Countries Study?

    That's a huge reach. First off as you mentioned the study was never retracted because it was NEVER found to be falsified. (FYI, studies are not typically retracted, we were talking about articles, this is just another shift in the discussion or is there a confusion between studies, trials and articles?). Also, the only people that consider it flawed are the same groups that complain about JUPITER. the anti-cholesterol crowd. This study is still accepted as the predecessor of the Mediterranean diet. The results can still be accessed at PubMed and have recently been through a 20 year follow up that supported the original results.;

    Over the past four decades, observational studies have come to conclusions similar to those of Keys and his coworkers. In observational studies, very large numbers of people are recruited. Careful measurements are made of their diet, exercise pattern, smoking status, weight and very many other variables. The participants report any new health problems that have developed. All of these measurements of lifestyle and health are made repeatedly over many years.

    In any case, what affect did it have on millions, they cut saturated fats out of their diets? No one suffered any adverse effects as a result. A major stretch to make a point.

    As far as Dipak K Das goes, yes he did falsify his work it appears, but how did it affect millions of people, they drank wine? How were they worse off for drinking wine? Again, truly falsified but not really an impact on the population.

    What you are missing is that in this case there was no proclamation of a new treatment for CVD that included drinking wine, some of the public ran with and drank some wine.

    Is that all you got?
    bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
    The 7 country study had an enormous impact on the American public. Although never retracted, it is now widely accepted that the graph painted a false picture due to the omitted data.

    Yes, that one false paper impacted millions of people.
    iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
    No, it has never been shown to have any falsified or ommitted data. Bobby, it was 1957. This study was the first true lipid study and is still widely acclaimed in medicine and is only questioned by skeptics that are going way back to 1957 to make a point.

    We should maybe stay a little more current since as some here have said, things chage.
    bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
    Yes data was omitted.
    bobby75703 replied to bobby75703's response:
    iride, There are roughly 200 countries on the planet at any given time.

    Keys used a comparison of only 7 countries to make his case that saturated fat consumption was related to heart disease .

    I was a teenager when I learned about the 7 country study. I can still remember my first thought upon hearing about it.

    "He came to that conclusion based upon only 7 countries? What about the rest of the world?"

    Now if a teenage boy focused only on chasing girls can think about that then, why couldn't our educated leaders?

    Gullible is the answer.
    iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
    Another stretch. It was 1957, there was not an infrastructure in place in many countries that could facilitate a study of this nature. Countries were selected that were capable of being included, nothing ommitted. Again, the only people that point a finger are the same ones that complain about JUPITER.

    You really have issues with educated people, I guess we should let the uneducated non-professionals do the work on these studes.

    You were a teenager in 1957 and reading studies?
    bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
    I was teenager in the 70's when my Father presented Key's study graph to me.

    I don't have issues with educated people. But I do have issues when misrepresentations are made. Especially when it impacts millions of people in a negative manner.

    Make no mistake. I have zero tolerance for white collar crime.

    Featuring Experts

    There are no Expert stories for this community right now

    Helpful Tips

    Statin use is generally safe, and NOT associated with cancer and myopathy
    This network meta-analysis study provides evidence on the comparative tolerability and harms of individual statins. Overall, statins as a ... More
    Was this Helpful?
    1 of 2 found this helpful

    Helpful Resources

    Be the first to post a Resource!

    Related Drug Reviews

    • Drug Name User Reviews

    Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

    FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.