Indian doc accused of 'fabricated' study

Nabanita Sircar

London, July 29, 2005

A study by an Indian doctor, published in the British Medical Journal in 1992, into the protective effect of diet on the heart was either "fabricated or falsified", researchers have warned. This is the second such case of research by Indian doctors.

The study, which was conducted in India, suggested that a "Mediterranean" type diet rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, whole grains and certain oils can reduce the risk of heart attack and death in people who already have heart disease.

The author of the study, Dr Ram B. Singh of the Medical Hospital and Research Centre in Moradabad, said such a diet might be more helpful in reducing heart problems than diets that focus solely on cutting saturated fat and cholesterol.

But 13 years later researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have expressed concern about "the validity" of the paper. The research team led by Professor Stephen Evans found statistical anomalies in the 831 patients that raised doubts about the integrity of the study.

They wrote: "Several statistical features of the data from the dietary trial are so strongly suggestive of data fabrication that no other explanation is likely. We conclude the data from the diet trial were either fabricated or falsified and the strength of the evidence is such that appropriate steps should be taken to deal with this matter."

The British Medical Journal has also highlighted the case of another author, Dr Ranjit Chandra, who had a study retracted by the journal Nutrition earlier this year. As with Dr Singh, serious doubts now hang over the rest of his work. Dr Chandra's controversial vitamin research, which was published in the September 2001 issue of the journal Nutrition, was retracted in the February 2005 issue. The research involved elderly test subjects given a vitamin and mineral supplement formulated by Chandra, a prominent researcher who was nominated for a Nobel Prize in 1992.

The study purported to demonstrate striking cognitive benefits for people over 65 who took a daily vitamin and mineral supplement that Dr. Chandra formulated and has since patented. He licensed the rights to the supplement to the Javaan Corporation, founded by his daughter, Amrita Chandra Gagnon. The company sells the supplement as Javaan 50. Chandra claimed the supplementation produced dramatic improvement to subjects' brain functions, including memory. He wrote the nutritional approach might delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease.

Before its 2001 publication, three scientific peers reviewed the article, but concerns were subsequently raised by other scientists, including editors from The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, which had turned down the article when submitted by Chandra, who now lives in Gurgaon.

In the case of Dr Singh, the former editor Richard Smith, who left the BMJ last year, accepts that it has taken far too long to bring the matter to light, and admits: "the failure is in part mine." But he said, "The bigger shame lies with the scientific community that lacks means to investigate these international scandals and has to leave it to an individual journal."

Smith believes employers are best able to conduct investigations but there needs to be an international body to take the lead. He also suggests that we should mark suspicious studies as "dubious" on international databases such as Pubmed.

Current editors Fiona Godlee and Jane Smith said although the BMJ may have done more, it has still taken more than 10 years to try to resolve this issue. They said: "Some argue that journals should keep 'black lists' of suspected papers and authors. Others suggest that journals should ask authors to deposit a copy of their raw data in a secure archive so that these could be audited if questions arise.

"Perhaps journals should be more ready to share their concerns about published papers, as the BMJ has done this week. This does not resolve the suspicions, but it alerts the scientific community, and it may in turn prompt a legitimate organisation to do the necessary investigations."

Regarding Dr Chandra's work, in 2004, the then BMJ editor Smith called for all of Chandra's work to be investigated on the basis his study showed signs of being entirely fabricated. Dr Smith said scientists who reviewed the paper had found the methods and statistical findings so unlikely that they wondered whether the study had actually been done.

When officials at Memorial University of Newfoundland, where Dr. Chandra worked for 27 years, asked to examine the study's raw data, he replied that they had mysteriously disappeared when the university moved his office.

A university spokesman, Dr. Jack Strawbridge, has been quoted denying any mishandling of Dr. Chandra's papers, adding that without the raw data and with Dr. Chandra now retired and out of the country, Memorial was unable to investigate the matter.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/...20,00430005.htm

Assuming that people eating a "mediterranean type diet" are eating fewer carbs and more Omega 3s than most people -- I can believe that they are healthier.

Regarding the details of this doctor -- based on the health improvements I have seen -- why would he need to fake it?

I am not sure if I am more upset that they falsified their study or that they didn't even know enough about statistics to make their falsified numbers at least seem valid. If you are going to do something you might as well do it right.

I wonder if the initial peer review was influenced by the subject matter and findings of the research. After all, "everyone knows" that a diet high in vegetables and whole grain is good for you, so research that "proves" that fact might just be waved through, whereas research showing, say, carbohydrate restriction was good for you, might get extra attention.

It is very difficult to get a study published if the results are negative. The journals like to publish studies that show that the experiment proves something, not that it didn't show anything. This encourages researchers to manipulate the data to push inconclusive results over into the statistically significant category.

Unethical work by researchers affects the validity of opinions of others who have relied upon the now questionable studies.

As an example, Anthony Colpo's "TheOmnivore" site, has a page entitled "Plant Power!", http://www.theomnivore.com/Plant_power.html, that is based on Dr. Ram Singh's research. Three of the four references are to Dr. Singh's research, including the 1992 work that is now in question.

I notified Anthony and he responded:
Hi Mike,

Thank you so much for writing. I read the BMJ story on Singh's questionable
conduct, but had forgotten all about the plant power article. I have acted upon
your suggestion to remove it from my site, at least until I get a chance to
rewrite it.

All the best,

Anthony.

Wow, that Anthony never ceases to amaze me. He is so principled. People like that are so hard to find these days. So if you're reading this, Mr. Colpo: you are an amazing man and I am your eternal fan. Never change. Except when you come accross falsified research, of course. Thanks again for standing up to your principles. Most people wouldn't give a damn and would keep inaccurate information up there anyway.

So right.

Imagine someone submitting a paper titled "High saturated fat diet reduces cardiovascular mortality by 97%" They would swarming ALL OVER that data with micrometers and geiger counters, calling in second and third teams just LOOKING for the slightest error.

Waved through, is right.