Archive for the ‘anil potti retractions’ Category
A partial retraction has joined the ten retractions and five corrections of Anil Potti’s papers, this one of a 2008 paper in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics. The move comes 14 months after the retraction of the Nature Medicine paper upon which much of the Molecular Cancer Therapeutics paper was based.
The reprimand, which was first reported by DukeCheck, became effective on March 6. In it, the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts noted that the North Carolina medical board had reprimanded Potti in November after he had Read the rest of this entry »
Updated at 1:40 p.m. Eastern: When original posted, this item reported, correctly, that the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners’ website listed Anil Potti’s license as “suspended.” However, that status has now been changed to “active,” along with “No disciplinary action taken by the Board. This certifies that the above licensee is in good standing.” We are working to figure out why the status was changed.
Update, 1:55 p.m.: The Board tells us they made a mistake:
I looked into this matter and apparently this was a clerical error on our part because there are no public orders at this time. You should see this reflected on our licensee lookup system within 24 hours. Sorry for any confusion.
Anil Potti, the former Duke oncology researcher who lost his job at a South Carolina oncology practice earlier this week, has had his South Carolina medical license suspended, SCNow reports.
The South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners now lists Potti’s license — which he was granted on April 6, 2011 — as
We had a look at his other licenses. Read the rest of this entry »
The development, first reported by Duke Check, follows a 60 Minutes segment last week focused on Potti and Duke. Duke Check also noted that a Myrtle Beach PR firm had promised a statement later today. Read the rest of this entry »
Anil Potti and his colleagues have retracted another paper, “Characterizing the Clinical Relevance of an Embryonic Stem Cell Phenotype in Lung Adenocarcinoma,” originally published in the December 15, 2009, issue of Clinical Cancer Research.
A 60 Minutes segment Sunday on Anil Potti has drawn national attention to the case, so we thought this would be a good time to compile all of the retractions and corrections in one place.
Duke has said that about a third of Potti’s 40-some-odd papers would be retracted, and another third would have “a portion retracted with other components remaining intact,” so this list will continue to grow. We’ll update it as we hear about new changes.
Retractions: Read the rest of this entry »
Anil Potti can add two corrections to his less-and-less impressive publication record. The mega-corrections — part of what we are close to being ready to call a trend in errata notices — in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) are, however, quite impressive, each with at least a dozen points.
“An Integrated Genomic-Based Approach to Individualized Treatment of Patients With Advanced-Stage Ovarian Cancer” by Holly K. Dressman, Andrew Berchuck, Gina Chan, Jun Zhai, Andrea Bild, Robyn Sayer, Janiel Cragun, Jennifer Clarke, Regina S. Whitaker, LiHua Li, Jonathan Gray, Jeffrey Marks, Geoffrey S. Ginsburg, Anil Potti, Mike West, Joseph R. Nevins, and Johnathan M. Lancaster (J Clin Oncol 25:517-525, 2007)
The majority of the authors wish to retract this article because Read the rest of this entry »
Anil Potti‘s retraction count is now eight with the withdrawal of a 2008 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
Seven retractions, a resignation, and lawsuit settlements haven’t stopped Anil Potti from publishing
“Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night” keeps U.S. mail carriers from delivering your letters and packages, and neither seven retractions, nor being forced to resign, nor malpractice settlements (and an ongoing case) keeps former Duke oncologist Anil Potti from publishing papers.
Potti’s latest effort, “A Pathway-Based Approach to Identify Molecular Biomarkers in Cancer,” appeared last month in the Annals of Surgical Oncology. The subject of the review is the same as many of his now-retracted papers, none of which are cited by the new paper. Read the rest of this entry »