Retraction Watch
Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process
Heart journal issues expression of concern after fraud report without comments
March 3, 2015
The American Heart Association’s journal Circulation has issued an expression of concern for a paper about the molecular underpinnings of arrhythmias that was co-authored by a biomedical engineer who committed fraud on a massive scale.
According to an investigation by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), former Vanderbilt engineer Igor Dzhura faked nearly 70 images and drastically over-estimated the number of experiments he conducted. He was banned from receiving federal funding for three years.
The fraud has resulted in six retracted papers, which have been cited more than 500 times.
The Circulation paper will not be retracted, because Dzhura only contributed to some panels of one figure, and the authors “have confirmed the veracity of the remaining data.” The journal cautions future readers that “the authors are unable to vouch for the accuracy of the data in Figure 6 panels a, c, and d.”
The paper has been cited 163 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
The ORI tweeted the link:
Editor-in-Chief of “Circulation” issues Expression of Concern over 2002 Igor Dzhura publication via@CircAHA http://t.co/PTkdBhQTZN
– Research Integrity (@HHS_ORI) February 24, 2015
Here’s the notice for “Calmodulin kinase II and arrhythmias in a mouse model of cardiac hypertrophy”:
As described in the Federal Register notice, Vol 79, No. 227, dated Tuesday, November 25, 2014 (http://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-dzhura-igor), Dr Igor Dzhura, formerly of Vanderbilt University, engaged in research misconduct by providing falsified and/or fabricated data to his supervisor. Accordingly, the authors are unable to vouch for the accuracy of the data in Figure 6 panels a, c, and d in an article that appeared in the September 3, 2002, issue of the journal:
Wu Y, Temple J, Zhang R, Dzhura I, Zhang W, Trimble R, Roden DM, Passier R, Olson EN, Colbran RJ, Anderson ME. Calmodulin kinase II and arrhythmias in a mouse model of cardiac hypertrophy.Circulation. 2002;106:1288-1293. [PMID: 12208807]
Dr Dzhura’s contributions to this article were limited to Figure 6 panels a, c, and d. The authors have confirmed the veracity of the remaining data in Figures 1 through 5 and Figure 6 panel b. The authors regret any confusion or inconvenience this has caused for the scientific community.
The editors felt it best to post this Expression of Concern to alert our readers to an investigative finding regarding this article that has been issued by the Office of Research Integrity.
We’ve emailed the editor, and will update if we hear back.
Retraction Watch
Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process
Scientists retract paper because they’re “not satisfied with the quality of some of the data”
12/28/2012
A group of smoking researchers – no, not scientists who are on fire; scientists who study the effects of tobacco smoke – has retracted a 2009 article after deciding that they were no longer “satisfied with the quality of the data.”
The paper, “Cigarette Smoke-induced Oxidative/Nitrosative Stress Impairs VEGF- and Fluid Shear Stress-Mediated Signaling in Endothelial Cells,” came from the lab of Irfan Rahman, a lung disease expert at the University of Rochester. It appeared online in 2009 in Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, which will be familiar to readers watching the case of Dipak Das.
As the notice explains:
The corresponding author has sought retraction of this work from ARS. The author statement is copied below: We, the authors, wish to retract “Cigarette Smoke-induced Oxidative/Nitrosative Stress Impairs VEGF- and Fluid Shear Stress-Mediated Signaling in Endothelial Cells” by Edirisinghe et al (Antioxid Redox Signal, 12 (12): 1355-1369. doi:10.1089/ars.2009.2874) because we are not satisfied with the quality of some of the data presented in the paper. Overall, however, the data are reproducible and the conclusions drawn were not affected. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused to the readers.
The paper has been cited 18 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
We tried to reach Rahman for more information but haven’t heard back from him yet. We’d like to know in particular why it took three years for the authors to figure out that they published an article with subpar data – and how those data could in turn be reproducible, exactly.
And anyway, how is it possible that the data were so poor as to require retraction, but good enough to be reproducible, and not damaging to the study conclusions? The short answer: Doesn’t seem likely.
Perhaps the “copied below” note in the second sentence of the notice reflects the same skepticism on the part of the editors. We’ve tried them for comment too.
How much is too much?
August 17, 2008
Smoking bans are empowered only by the fact; most non-smokers do not like the smell of tobacco smoke; sum and total. A political win by the majority rules, although most don’t care, they never did, beyond the perspective of what brings them comfort as the ruling perspective.
The truth in respect to the legitimate “fear” can be seen by how many actually run away from what is said to be a mortal danger with no safe level? How many have been prosecuted, or could be, for attempt murder or common assault with a deadly weapon by smoking in the presence of others?
There is no legitimate danger or fear, the lie supports comfort, nothing more.
There are other perspectives, despite what you may have be taught by the advertisers and promoters, who pay a lot of money to convince you their is a legitimate harm found, in normal exposures seen in respect to second hand smoke.
Tax exempt RWJF for instance, gambled a half a Billion [with a B] dollars, confident they could convince us, “smokers” are different from the rest of us. The profits and increased stock values of a large block of stock they hold in Johnson and Johnson [their protected tax adjusted parent] demonstrates the investment paid off large. As does the increased value of Philip Morris stock, since the Tobacco Papers and the Tobacco settlements saw them at an all time low, shows clearly they are dong pretty well, reinvigorated by the anti smoker movement as well.
What is really wrong with smoking bans?
Beyond the lies, lies by omission and exaggerations, the statistical deceit, the financial costs and incredible levels of profiteering, or the long list of other damages to otherwise peaceful and co-operative communities. Realization of huge mistakes made, shortly after they were made, the last time this nanny state theology was popular, might help to refresh our memories.
The scientific community was never humbled by the realization of the horrors they inflicted on the world, they simply pointed at others. Just as they do today, shamelessly protecting their benefactors, they blame the users, to deflect our contempt away from the product.
As good cop bad cop routines play out, not a single raised eyebrow of concern is seen, by the realization the same hated industry executives [as the dragon] also supply the bulk of processed foods on your child’s dinner plate under the alias of Kraft or Nabisco. Enticements sold with the same targeted methods, being used now to present themselves as your protectors and as your proxy, which permits the same targeting of your children, through carefully worded advertising and politics, which in large part is now also seen in their classrooms.
From the document UNESCO and its program, 111
The race question.
From the preamble we find;
“The great and terrible war which has now ended was a war made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men, and by the propagation, in their place, through ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the inequality of men and races.”
And of course;
“Knowledge of the truth does not always help change emotional attitudes that draw their real strength from the subconscious or from factors beside the real issue.”
In its final conclusions in the opinion of Scientists world wide, it was stated;
“Man is born a social being who can reach his fullest development only through interaction with his fellows. The denial at any point of this social bond between man and man brings with it disintegration.”
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001282/128291eo.pdf
It really is worth the read. If for no other reason, to help understand what is inherently wrong with smoking bans. The same promotions of inciting hatred utilizing incredibly the identical slogans and catch phrases, which should have caught the attention of all of us.
Divisions are being formed by comparing groups of people, to claim superiority, or harms to be feared. Degenerative advertisements are being employed by large well heeled groups, identifying themselves only as Public Health Authorities, operating as a cult movement and spreading the same gospel targeting groups of otherwise innocent and normal human beings with; denormalization “”campaigns””.
“A particularly vicious and mean expression of the Caste spirit. It involves belief in the innate and absolute superiority of an arbitrarily defined human group over other equally arbitrarily defined human groups”
Anyone who has bought into this corrosion of communities, even to a small degree, has been trapped by the threat of being described as hypocritical, if you resist buying into the complete package and the unbridled hatred we have all witnessed in the past.
http://lieberaldictators.blogspot.com/2008/08/how-much-is-too-much.html#links
Secondhand Smoke Blocks Artery Repair
By Ed Edelson
HealthDay Reporter
April 29, 2008
(HealthDay News) — Secondhand smoke not only damages the delicate cells that line blood vessels but also disrupts the body’s natural repair mechanism for those cells, a new study shows.
The research was done because there still are skeptics who doubt the health value of public smoking bans, said study co-author Stanton A. Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education.
“There still are some people out there saying these effects [from smoking bans], seen in terms of reduced heart attacks and an immediate drop in heart attacks, are just not feasible,” Glantz said.
The findings were expected to be published in the May 6 issue of theJournal of the American College of Cardiology.
The new study tested the arterial effects of 30 minutes exposure to secondhand smoke on 10 young adult nonsmokers. The concentration of ambient smoke used was “about the level you would get in a bar,” Glantz said.
The researchers did a number of detailed tests to measure the impact of that exposure on the endothelial cells that line blood vessels. These cells line the entire circulatory system and serve as a kind of interface between circulating blood and the interior of the vessel wall.
That endothelial cells are damaged by secondhand smoke was already known, Glantz said. However, “Everybody asks how long that effect persists, but nobody had studied that question,” he said.
The answer, according to the study, is that “most of the effects persist for at least a day,” Glantz said. “We only did 24 hours, because we thought they would be gone after 24 hours. They weren’t.”
There was also a clear negative effect on endothelial progenitor cells, which are produced in the bone marrow and circulate through the body. The progenitor cells’ job is to seek out and repair endothelial damage.
Secondhand smoke exposure interfered with chemical signals that bring these progenitor cells to the sites of damage, Glantz said. “It wiped out the chemotaxis [direction signaling] for at least a day,” he said. “We don’t know how long the effect persists.”
It’s a “fascinating” study, said Dr. Norman H. Edelman, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association.
“We already know that exposure to secondhand smoke can cause endothelial changes,” Edelman said. “The beginning of arterial disease is endothelial damage. What this study shows is that the cells that are essential in the repair of the endothelium are also affected by secondhand smoke.”
The study comes as Atlantic City becomes the latest American community to ban smoking in public places, Edelman noted.
“The good news is that a little more than half of the country is now smoke-free,” Glantz said. “The bad news is that a little more than half of the country is not smoke-free.”
More information
A fact sheet on secondhand smoke is available from the American Lung Association.
SOURCES: Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D., professor, medicine, University of California, San Francisco; Norman H. Edelman, M.D., chief medical officer, American Lung Association; May 6, 2008,Journal of the American College of Cardiology
