Important quick update – pardon the lack of formatting – I’ll try to
clean it up later –

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Retraction Watch
Date: Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:22 PM
Subject: [New post] Does scientific misconduct cause patient harm? The case
of Joachim Boldt
To: dave@epatientdave.com

Does scientific misconduct cause patient harm? The case of Joachim Boldt

by ivanoransky

If you wanted to minimize the real-life effects of misconduct, you
might note that some of the retractions we cover are in tiny obscure
journals hardly anyone reads. But a new meta-analysis and editorial in
JAMA today suggests — as a study by Grant Steen did a few years ago
— that the risk of patient harm due to scientific misconduct is not
just theoretical.

As the editorialists note, hydroxyethyl starches (HES) are “synthetic
fluid products used commonly in clinical practice worldwide:”

Synthetic colloids received market approval in the 1960s without
evaluation of their efficacy and safety in large phase 3 clinical
trials. Subsequent studies reported mixed evidence on their benefits
and harms.

There has been controversy over the use of HES for decades, with the
most recent high-level review showing “no significant mortality
increase.” But one of the reasons for that review — by the
prestigious Cochrane Collaboration — was to see if the dozens of
now-retracted studies by Joachim Boldt …

Read more of this post:
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/does-scientific-misconduct-cause-patient-harm-the-case-of-joachim-boldt