Skip to content Skip to footer
Why Aren’t These Fraudulent Papers Retracted?
(Photo: Elvire.R.)

Why Aren’t These Fraudulent Papers Retracted?

(Photo: Elvire.R.)

Click here to support news free of corporate influence by donating to Truthout.

According to Science Times,(1) the Tuesday science section in The New York Times, scientific retractions are on the rise because of a “dysfunctional scientific climate” that has created a “winner-take-all game with perverse incentives that lead scientists to cut corners and, in some cases, commit acts of misconduct.”

But elsewhere, audacious, falsified research stands unretracted – including the work of authors who actually went to prison for fraud!

Richard Borison MD, former psychiatry chief at the Augusta Veterans Affairs medical center and Medical College of Georgia, was sentenced to 15 years in prison for a $10 million clinical trial fraud,(2) but his 1996 US Seroquel® Study Group research is unretracted.(3) In fact, it is cited in 173 works and medical textbooks, misleading future medical professionals.(4)

Scott Reuben MD, the “Bernie Madoff” of medicine who published research on clinical trials that never existed, was sentenced to six months in prison in 2010.(5) But his “research” on popular pain killers like Celebrex and Lyrica is unretracted.(6) If going to prison for research fraud is not enough reason for retraction, what is?

Wayne MacFadden MD, resigned as US medical director for Seroquel in 2006, after sexual affairs with two coworker women researchers surfaced,(7) but the related work is unretracted and was even part of Seroquel’s FDA approval package for bipolar disorder.(8)

More than 50 ghostwritten papers about hormone therapy (HT) written by Pfizer’s marketing firm, Designwrite, ran in medical journals, according to unsealed court documents on the University of California – San Francisco’s Drug Industry Document Archive.(9) Though the papers claimed no link between HT and breast cancer and false cardiac and cognitive benefits and were ghostwritten by marketing professionals not doctors, none has been retracted.

For example, a paper written by DesignWrite’s Karen Mittleman,(10) according to court-obtained documents, titled “Is there an association between hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer?” in the Journal of Women’s Health(11) finds, “these data fail to provide definitive evidence that the use of postmenopausal HRT is associated with an increased incidence of breast cancer,” and is unretracted.

Pfizer/Parke-Davis placed 13 ghostwritten articles(12) in medical journals promoting Neurontin for off-label uses, including a supplement to the Cleveland Clinic,(13) but only Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews and Protocols has retracted the specious articles.(14)

Since 2008, when Pharma-slanted science forced Congressional investigation,(15) major journals have instituted systems to obviate fraud and financial corruption and implemented stronger disclosure policies. One of the key figures investigated in 2008 for Pharma financial links was Alan F. Schatzberg MD, former American Psychiatric Association president, in whose co-written textbook the Borison research still appears! Researchers and doctor authors also have a new awareness of the dangers of working from second-hand data that they have not personally collected or analyzed.

Nor is the phony science just a product of “Big Pharma.” In 2008, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) was forced to print a correction stating that authors of an article arguing for a higher recommended dietary allowance of protein were, in fact, industry operatives.(16) Sharon L. Miller was “formerly employed by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association,” and author Robert R. Wolfe PhD, received money from the Egg Nutrition Center, the National Dairy Council, the National Pork Board and the Beef Checkoff through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, said the clarification. Miller’s email address, in fact was [email protected], which should might have been the JAMA editors’ first tip-off.(17) The article has also not been retracted.


1. See here.

2. Steve Stecklow and Laura Johannes, “Test Case: Drug Makers Relied on Two Researchers Who Now Await Trial,” Wall Street Journal, August 8, 1997.

3. Richard Borison et al., “ICI 204,636, an Atypical Antipsychotic: Efficacy and Safety in a Multicenter, Placebo-Controlled Trial in Patients with Schizophrenia,” Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 16, no. 2 (April 1996): 158–69.

4. Alan F. Schatzberg and Charles B. Nemeroff, Textbook of Psychopharmacology (New York: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2009) p. 609.

5. See here.

6. Scott Reuben et al., “The Analgesic Efficacy of Celecoxib, Pregabalin and Their Combination for Spinal Fusion Surgery,” Anesthesia & Analgesia 103, no. 5 (November 2006): 1271–77.

7. See here.

8. See here. (BOLDER study.)

9. Martha Rosenberg, “Flash Back. The Troubling Revival of Hormone Therapy. Consumers Digest, November 2010.

10. See here.

11. 1998 December; 7(10):1231-46.

12. Kristina Fiore, “Journals Aided in Marketing of Gabapentin,” MedPage Today, September 11, 2009.

13. United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Report on the Use of Neurontin for Bipolar and Other Mood Disorders.

14. P. J. Wiffen et al., “WITHDRAWN: Gabapentin for Acute and Chronic Pain,” Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews and Protocols 16, no. 3 (March 16, 2011); P. J. Wiffen et al., “WITHDRAWN: Anticonvulsant Drugs for Acute and Chronic Pain,” Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews and Protocols no. 1 (January 20, 2010).

15. See here.

16. See here.

17. See here.

Correction: Due to an editing error, a paper in the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia was incorrectly cited as unretracted. “The Analgesic Efficacy of Celecoxib, Pregabalin and Their Combination for Spinal Fusion Surgery,” Anesthesia & Analgesia 103, no. 5 (November 2006): 1271–77 by Scott Reuben et al. was retracted in 2009. Other papers published by Scott Reuben MD remain unretracted.

​​Not everyone can pay for the news. But if you can, we need your support.

Truthout is widely read among people with lower ­incomes and among young people who are mired in debt. Our site is read at public libraries, among people without internet access of their own. People print out our articles and send them to family members in prison — we receive letters from behind bars regularly thanking us for our coverage. Our stories are emailed and shared around communities, sparking grassroots mobilization.

We’re committed to keeping all Truthout articles free and available to the public. But in order to do that, we need those who can afford to contribute to our work to do so.

We’ll never require you to give, but we can ask you from the bottom of our hearts: Will you donate what you can, so we can continue providing journalism in the service of justice and truth?