Archive for the ‘infectious disease’ Category
The journal Neurology has issued an expression of concern for a paper linking shingles and stroke, which got press attention when it was published.
The journal’s note refers to “errors of data presentation,” which author Judith Breuer more narrowly defined as mistakes during transcription of a table. It’s unclear whether the results themselves – that herpes zoster, the virus that causes shingles, is a risk factor for stroke and other vascular problems – are being called into question.
A little more than a month after removing a highly criticized article that claimed the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine increased the risk of autism in African American boys, Translational Neurodegeneration has officially retracted the paper.
The paper, “Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent,” is written by Patricia Goodson of Texas A&M University and was published on September 23 in Frontiers in Public Health. As Tara Smith, who blogged about the paper yesterday, notes: Read the rest of this entry »
The article was titled “In vitro neutralization of HCV by goat antibodies against peptides encompassing regions downstream of HVR-1 of E2 glycoprotein.” According to the abstract: Read the rest of this entry »
We brought you this story last week, about a paper on drug resistant staph being retracted for a lab error. Now, we’ve got an update from Rachel Safer, senior editor for medical journals at Oxford University Press, where the paper was published.
Apparently, the researchers “inadvertently relied upon the use of a test system that was not approved for the microorganism studied in their paper,” leading to the retraction, and the corresponding author of the study wasn’t initially all that responsive:
What could have been a truly scary study about drug resistant staph infections in hospitals has been retracted due to a lab error.
Researchers at a community hospital in Pittsburgh claimed that the commonly quoted 3% rate of staph that is resistant to ceftriaxone and sensitive to methicillin was drastically understated. However, an “honest error in the interpretation of a key lab test” called the findings into question.
When Pharmacy Practice found out it had been victimized by plagiarists, it apparently took the news personally — and to heart.
In an elaborate statement with more than a dozen references — but not one to the plagiarizing work — the journal lashed out against the behavior of word thieves, and described the discovery as a Road to Damascus moment.
Here’s the notice, which was published in 2012 but was only just indexed on PubMed:
Last month, we brought you the story of the retraction of a paper by Nobutu Yamamoto and colleagues about “a protein being used — unapproved by health agencies — to treat diseases including cancer and autism.”
A second paper by the group, about using the protein to treat HIV, has been retracted. Here’s the notice for “Immunotherapy of HIV-infected patients with Gc protein-derived macrophage activating factor (GcMAF),” from the Journal of Medical Virology:
Read the rest of this entry »
Retraction Watch readers may recall that nearly two years ago, an editor at PLOS declared the scientific story of a link between XMRV, aka xenotropic murine leukemia-related virus, and prostate cancer over, saying that a retraction from PLOS Pathogens was the “final chapter.” (That retraction led to an apology from the journal about how it was handled.)
Perhaps, however, there is an epilogue. This week, a group of authors who published a highly cited 2009 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) making the same link retracted it. Here’s the notice, signed by all five authors: Read the rest of this entry »