Company sues researcher over unfavourable review

Company sues researcher over unfavourable review

www.nature.com

A biomedical researcher at the US National Institutes of Health has been sued for publishing a study that linked a class of blood substitutes to increased risk of heart attack and death.

Biopure, a company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, accused Charles Natanson of making "false and defamatory statements" about the company's blood substitute, Hemopure, both in a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and in letters sent to health officials in the United Kingdom, Greece and South Africa.
Blood substitutes are meant to help alleviate the shortage of natural blood in many parts of the world.Blood substitutes are meant to help alleviate the shortage of natural blood in many parts of the world.

The study, published by JAMA in April, combined data from clinical trials of five blood substitutes, including Hemopure. All five products were haemoglobin-based blood substitutes designed to improve oxygen transport in patients with severe anaemia, and members of a class plagued by safety concerns. Several of the products studied had had trials terminated early for safety reasons. Hemopure had been approved for use only in South Africa, where the HIV epidemic has dramatically restricted blood supplies.

On the basis of their analysis, Natanson and his co-authors concluded that the blood substitutes were associated with a 30% increase in the risk of death compared with control solutions, which varied among the studies. According to Biopure, Natanson then sent letters to countries with ongoing or planned clinical trials of Hemopure to alert them to his findings. Natanson declined interview requests for this story.

Biopure asserts that Natanson's analysis was so methodologically flawed that he could not conclude that Hemopure poses a health risk. In June, the company's lawyers sent Natanson a letter asking him to retract the paper. He stood by his findings.

(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 11-11-2008 by grover]

I guess they only wanted positive reviews.

JAMA has some pretty strict guidelines so if they accepted the article they must of had faith in the results.

I have been in a few drugs studies up at the local VA hospital (yes I know... it explains a lot ) and strictly from a guinea pigs experience the company having the drug tested actually has a considerable amount of say in the protocols of the test as does the VA system in as a whole and those protocols are very strict. As are all the protocols for all testing on humans.

Therefore I find it hard to believe that any given researcher could actually "botch" a study per say.

Besides if they wanted a good review why didn't they just buy him?



www.nature.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 11-11-2008 by grover]