Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Amarin pulls a Romney: For the second time in a week, premature news of FDA drug approval posted, then retracted

with 13 comments

There is apparently a special this week on websites posting news of drug approvals before they actually happen.

On Monday, USA Today inadvertently posted a story about the approval of Qsymia, a weight loss drug, several hours before the FDA made an announcement. Today, Amarin, which makes a compound designed to lower triglycerides, put up a site saying that the drug had been approved by the FDA. Trouble was, that decision isn’t expected until July 26. According to Reuters:

Amarin said in a regulatory filing that the information was inadvertently published through a draft website that is under design by third parties on behalf of Amarin.

“The information was outdated and should not be relied upon as accurate,” Amarin said.

“Outdated?” How exactly is information that is not true, but may be true at some future date, “outdated?” Perhaps they meant one day it would be true, a la Mitt Romney’s “retroactively retired” from Bain.

Written by Ivan Oransky

July 19th, 2012 at 4:06 pm

Posted in publisher error

Comments
  • barbara2c July 19, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    Leave politics out of it. It adds nothing to the article and makes you look like you are just trying to get a cheap shot in.

  • littlegreyrabbit July 19, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    So what would pulling an Obama be?
    Claiming to have cured cancer but neglecting to take a photograph, done 454 sequencing on the tumour in a record timeframe but unable to specify where this took place, and dropping the tumor to the bottom of the ocean.
    Or maybe finding arsenic based life-forms.

  • john July 19, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    It never fails to amaze me when scientists become befuddled by business or law, yet are so arrogant to assume their simplistic interpretation of events is accurate.

  • Glenn July 19, 2012 at 7:57 pm

    I’ve been following RW for awhile now and I am disappointed in the petty tone this post took. I know you were probably trying to be witty, but this should be beneath RW. FactCheck.org has repeatedly checked the President’s claim that Romney has committed a felony and found it to be incorrect. [Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CHoQjBAwAg&url=http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/&ei=n50IUMXtELSK2QW0uqXeBw&usg=AFQjCNGRA5qHEk2QAE5sCqDUdpcs8tYCwQ&sig2=SQlDFLxUeZ_mUkPyzwdPKw%5D

    Perhaps it is time for RW to issue their own retraction…

    • ivanoransky July 19, 2012 at 8:32 pm

      We’re sorry some readers didn’t find our humor amusing, and we always appreciate feedback.

      But we didn’t say anything about a felony or anything the Obama campaign said. We’re clearly referring to Romney aide Ed Gillespie’s comments on Sunday that Romney “retroactively retired” from Bain. Watch the video here.

      • Glenn July 19, 2012 at 8:46 pm

        But you stated that Mitt Romney said this when in fact an aide said it, which is very different. The title also gives an incorrect impression of what happened, which makes the post seem to be just a jab at Romney. The misleading nature of what is written is what I have a problem with.

        • ivanoransky July 19, 2012 at 8:52 pm

          Where did we say that these words came out of Mitt Romney’s mouth? If you’re suggesting that Ed Gillespie was not speaking for Mitt Romney, we’ll have to agree to disagree. And if that was what you had a problem with, it’s not clear what the “felony” claim had to do with it. Thanks for your comments.

  • Patrick July 20, 2012 at 7:26 am

    We are about to be immersed in a non-stop political firestorm on every channel for the next 3 months. Until now, this was one of several websites I could go to that was content-rich and politics-free. Please keep it that way. Otherwise the content isn’t worth the emotional, pseudo-intellectual outbursts that will inevitably occur. I find it particularly depressing how scientists so willingly abandon the critical approach required by their work and believe, whole-heartedly in whatever they hear on TV or read in the NYT. Politics filtered through today’s media makes everybody stupid.

  • albertp July 20, 2012 at 10:04 am

    Please no politics here.

  • WahrheitundDichtung July 20, 2012 at 11:03 am

    Well, I for one found the comment amusing and quite appropriate. It turns out to be rather enlightening, too. Who would have thought that those who are most interested in Science’s bad and ugly can have a similar liking in the respective characters in Politics? This finding is probably sound, but certainly startling if not disturbing. This novel and broadly important concept thus merits recognition by the scientific community and general public. Ivan, according to SCIENCE magazine’s “Information for Authors” this is material not just specialty journals lust for! Yes, SCIENCE! As you know, they have just cleared a few pages. Go for it!

  • Mike July 21, 2012 at 8:39 am

    Gov. Romney took a leave of absence from Bain to run the Olympics. He retired subsequently. Say what you like, your depiction is misleading.

  • Charles Hoogstraten July 23, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Some of the commenters here need to polish up their sense of humor. “Retroactively retired” is a silly thing to say, and someone who says it (or whose hired mouthpiece says it) can expect to be kidded about it. I’d give somebody grief about that whether or not I liked them or their politics. Turn down the gain on your “OMG somebody criticized my candidate!” receivers a bit, folks.

    • NVP July 26, 2012 at 4:23 am

      It is definitely mistake and extremely bad taste from this blog to go political. I thought that this blog was supposedly about scientific integrity and not about partisan US politics.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.