Validity of Canadian studiesBMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7437.465-a (Published 19 February 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:465
The report contains several inaccuracies. The typographic error of writing SE instead of SD had already been acknowledged. We did not ask the subjects to remember and recount 50 digits. I provided detailed responses to all the comments of Roberts and Sternberg. However, Meguid (the editor) took the unfair step of sending my response to them and they modified their commentary and added a figure that I did not see before publication.
In science there is scope for different methods of analyses. It is impossible to conduct statistical analyses from our published paper of the kind claimed by Roberts. Repeated requests to Roberts, Sternberg, and Meguid about their funding and honorariums have not yielded a response.
President Meisen of Memorial University and his advisers looked at my manuscript; all information was provided. He wrote to Smith, editor of the BMJ: “I am satisfied that there has been no wrongdoing by Dr Chandra. I urge you to draw the same conclusions.” Meisen said that I had promptly and thoroughly responded to all his queries.
Strawbridge's comments are at variance with his president's conclusions. His assertion that “a very large proportion of Chandra's work is in a journal he edits” is wrong; only 11 out of 190 articles were published in Nutrition Research. He does not say why the university has not investigated the criminal offence of the breaking open of my office and cabinets. A nurse's recorded statement that “she had tucked away” my research files that are still missing was not followed up.
I stand by my research. I am confident the conclusions of our study will be confirmed.
Competing interests RKC holds a patent for a multinutrient but has not derived any financial gain from it.
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Sign up for a free trial