Three journals raise doubts on validity of Canadian studies
BMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7431.67 (Published 09 January 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:67All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
It is amazing to see the degree of similarity in this response and
the one by "Karl F Bergmann". This response is word-by-word similar to the
third paragraph of "Bergmann"'s response. We feel that both these
responses are written by Dr. Chandra himself or through his close
friends/relatives. Could these be verified in some manner?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
We would like to respond to several statements by Dr. Chandra in his
Rapid Responses of January 26 (1) and February 19 (2).
First, “since the publication of the correspondence in Nutrition,”
Dr. Chandra wrote, “I have consulted other statisticians who state that
from the published paper it is impossible to derive statistical analyses
and conclusions of the kind claimed by Roberts and Sternberg” (1). It is
curious that he did not consult them before writing his reply (3) to our
letter (4). We encourage these statisticians to make public their
criticisms of our analyses and conclusions.
Second, "despite repeated requests,” Dr. Chandra wrote,” Drs.
Roberts, Sternberg and Meguid have failed to indicate sources of their
funding, receipt of speaking fees and honoraria” (1). We have no idea what
“repeated requests” he refers to. Email to Dr. Chandra asking him what he
meant has not been answered. In both (4) and (5) we stated that we had no
conflicts of interest. In his later Rapid Response, Dr. Chandra wrote that
perhaps we had “received funds from industry that deals with nutritional
supplements or pharmaceutical companies that deal with medications for
disorders of cognitive functions and therefore may well be in conflict of
interest” (2). We have received no such funds.
Third, Dr. Chandra stated that he has “not received any financial
benefit from [his multinutrient patent]” (2). This leaves open the
possibility that his children have received financial benefits from it.
According to a March 2003 press release from the Javaan Corporation
(available on February 28, 2004 at
www.javaancorp.com/press-releases/company-fact-sheet.pdf), located in
Somerville, Massachusetts, “Ms. Amrita Chandra, 32, founded Javaan
Corporation with the mission to produce quality nutritional products based
on the research of her father, Dr. Ranjit K. Chandra, an internationally
renowned expert in nutritional immunology.” The press release describes in
detail the Nutrition study that we criticized.
Finally, Dr. Chandra wrote, "I stand by my research. ... the methods
used were referenced by published citations" (2). This is not entirely
correct. No citation was given for the test of "long-term memory recall"
he claimed to have used (6), a test whose existence we questioned (4).
Fortunately Dr. Chandra has offered (2) to answer questions about his
work (“any one still in doubt about any aspect of my study can write to me
directly”). Anyone with questions about the accuracy of our criticisms
here or earlier (4, 5) can write to Dr. Chandra and, via a Rapid Response,
inform bmj readers of his answer.
1. Chandra RK Nutrient supplements and health. (26 January 2004)
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7431/67#47651
2. Chandra RK .Any one who preaches a gospel should also practice it.
(19 February 2004).
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7431/67#50788
3. Chandra RK. Can nutrient supplements improve functional outcome in
the elderly? Nutrition 2003; 19: 978-80.
4. Roberts S, Sternberg S. Do nutritional supplements improve
cognitive function in the elderly? Nutrition 2003; 19: 976-8.
5. Carpenter KC, Roberts S, Sternberg S. Nutrition and immune
function: a 1992 report. Lancet 2003; 361: 2247.
6. Chandra RK. Effect of vitamin and trace element supplementation on
cognitive function in elderly subjects. Nutrition 2001; 17: 709-12.
Competing interests:
We are the authors of a letter in Nutrition (4) criticizing Dr. Chandra’s 2001 Nutrition article (6) and co-authors of a letter in The Lancet (5) criticizing an earlier article by Dr. Chandra.
Competing interests: No competing interests
This response appears unusual and it appears as though it is written
by Dr. Chandra himself posing as Karl F Bergmann. Is it possible to
investigate whether the person (Bergmann) exists at the Switzerland
address provided and the place that has been used to write the response?
The details provided in this response are too accurate and precise to be
known to people other than Dr. Chandra.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir,
It is a common human tendency to emphasise your strength
and shirk your weaknesses,which is clear from the recent correspondence
from Dr Chandra and BMJ editor.Dr Smith,the editor has honestly admitted
that Dr Caroline writes for him
rather than for herself,which is very great of him.However,Dr Smith has
pointed out that Dr Chandra has ignored several points,while answering the
allegations which
is quite natural because he wants to defend.What is unnatural is,that so
far their is no apology from editorial
board of BMJ for the mistakes in the news article blaming
Dr Chandra which indicates,conflict of interest,simply to damage his
reputation.
The editor is insisting that Dr Chandra should submit himself for the
inquiry to his University authorities.In case,the inquiry is in favour of
Dr Chandra,can BMJ promise
to pay him UK pounds one million as damages to his reputation and would
not insist for another inquiry.If the
dispute continues,it would definitely damage the reputation
of BMJ and BMA, which is still silent.
R B Singh
Competing interests:
Dr Chandra is known to me for the last 20 years
and both work on clinical nutrition
Competing interests: No competing interests
I have full faith in the expertise and impartiality of President Alex
Meisen of Memorial University. I had provided all the information he had
asked for including relevant raw data so that the accuracy of numbers,
digits and statistics in my paper could be verified. After extensive
review in which he was aided was senior professors in the relevant
subjects, Meisen wrote to BMJ editor Richard Smith on 02 April 2001,
saying "In all respects, I am satisfied that there has been no wrongdoing
by Dr. Chandra and I urge you to draw the same conclusion".
There is no assurance that yet another inquiry by Memorial University
would satisfy those who have been critical of my study. Will they believe
the conclusions of a new inquiry? This could go on for ever and ever, ad
nauseatum.
The research files and spare serum samples of most of my studies
conducted in Newfoundland and patient files over a 20-year period are
stored in more than fifty large movers's boxes and two deep freezers that
were handed over to the office of the Dean of Medicine when I left St.
John's.
I am willing to attempt retrieval of all available data relevant to
the study. This will be time consuming and expensive. Before I do this, I
must:
1. Receive the raw data from Michael Meguid for studies reported in
Nutrition Research (2001;21:395). This request was made prior to the
submission of my manuscript to Nutrition and has been pending for three
years. Meguid should not, nor should any one else making comments on my
paper, expect others to comply with similar requests when he is unwilling
to do it.
2. Know the action taken by the Memorial University administration on
the breaking of locks of my office, desks and filing cabinets. A list of
the files that were obviously missing was provided immediately to Dean Ian
Bowmer. The list was not all-inclusive and a second list was given to
Bowmer after a few weeks. I seek an apology from the individual who
authorized this break in. The episode has all the makings of the infamous
Watergate. Surely, this cannot be condoned in law-abiding Canada.
3. Receive an erratum statement and apology from Jack Strawbridge for
making inaccurate statements, such as the proportion of my papers in
Nutrition Research, the dates of my resignation and leaving St. John's.
These statements were quoted in print by Caroline White and by Barbara
Sweet.
4. Be provided with a complete list of souces of funding, speaker
fees and honoraria for all individuals critical of my paper (Roberts,
Sternberg, Meguid, Smith, Susan Shenkin, Alan Shenkin, and the BMJ in-
house editor whose comments started this debate). It is quite possible
that some of these individuals received funds from industry that deals
with nutritional supplements or pharmaceutical companies that deal with
medications for disorders of cognitive functions and therefore may well be
in conflict of interest.
5. Be informed of the identity of the BMJ in-house editor whose
comments form the bulk of White's item and who continues to wear the burqa
(veil) of anonymity even though BMJ claims to have an open review policy.
I stand by my research. The study design was described in clear
terms, the methods used were referenced by published citations, and the
conclusions were preliminary and cautious. Any competent reader has all
the information needed to repeat the study.
As many individuals have remarked, the best test to verify the
conclusions of any research is to repeat the study using an almost
identical design and intervention. This has now happened. The main
conclusions of my study have been confirmed by at least two other groups
of investigators who will be sending their papers for publication in the
next few months, but obviously not to BMJ or Nutrition, nor would they
wish parties to this debate to be expert reviewers of the manuscripts.
Finally, any one still in doubt about any aspect of my study can
write to me directly, making sure that he/she has read my paper as also
the earlier responses in Nutrition (2003;19:976-980) and in these columns.
The shoe cannot be worn on one foot only. Any one who preaches a
gospel should also practice it.
Competing interests:
I hold patent for a multinutrient and have not derived any financial benefit from this.
Competing interests: No competing interests
In the rapid responses following Caroline White’s report of concerns
about the study published by Dr Chandra in Nutrition, a number of
correspondents have felt it more appropriate to attack the motives of
those who have asked questions about Dr Chandra’s paper, rather than ask
for Dr Chandra to reply to the specific concerns raised about the
methodology and results of his trial. I am a researcher who has spent most
of his academic life working in the field of micronutrients, and over the
years I have heavily quoted Dr Chandra’s work in my publications. Together
with most other workers in this field, I am constantly seeking examples of
functional effects of micronutrients, over and above prevention of
deficiency states. Having had no involvement in its pre-publication
assessment, I was therefore delighted to see his paper when it was
published in Nutrition in 2001. By coincidence, my daughter is a research
fellow interested in influences on cognitive ageing so I drew her
attention to it.
It was her research group in the Department of Psychology in the
University of Edinburgh which raised the initial questions, (expanded by
Roberts and Sternberg) which still remain to be answered. None of us
involved in academic work in this field are seeking anything other than
clarification of aspects of the methodology and the data. From my point of
view, I would very much like Dr Chandra to provide clear answers to these
simple questions, so that in future articles I write I can quote his paper
in Nutrition with a full understanding of the methods and the results.
Competing interests:
Competing interests: I am European Editor of the journal Nutrition. In the past, I have received research grants for studies on micronutrient supplements, but currently I have no financial link with any company involved with such supplements.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Sir,
Concerning the Chandra debate: if Dr. Chandra was to provide the
details of the study methodology and the original data as requested by his
critics, wouldn’t the debate end? The scientific process encompasses: 1.
the careful conduct of the researcher and/or by his/her team and the
acquisition of credible data; 2. the description of the research in a
manuscript, with presentation of the data and logical interpretation, such
that fellow scientists can reproduce the data; 3. a peer review system of
the manuscript prior to publication ; 4. following its publication,
withstanding the scrutiny of the data by readers of the paper; 5. in the
long-term, the independent reproducibility of the data based on the
methods reported in the paper.
In the past, Nutrition’s readers have occasionally raised issues
based on point number 4, above, and these have always been satisfactorily
resolved by open discussion and, if necessary to satisfy statistical
concerns, by disclosure of the data. With regard to Dr Chandra’s study,
the controversy over the veracity of the data could have been resolved at
an early stage, and can still be easily resolved were Dr Chandra to
provide the details of the study methodology and the original data to his
critics. Until now, despite contrary claims, he has failed to provide
specific answers to questions about the methodology, nor access to the
data. Why?
Competing interests:
I have no financial or intellectual conflict of interest.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir- The use of part of a confidential review in the dramatic way Ms.
White has done in relation to Dr. Chandra’s study (big blue centered
font), is a major breach to scientific publishing principles as well as to
common sense. Now that reviewer has become a party in any further
investigation of this issue, whether he wanted it or not. How we will be
encouraged to do paper reviews for journals if this can subject us to such
an outcome. Now whether the reviewer agrees to use his review or not does
not change the matter much; that is a confidential process of scientific
evaluation has been used out of its purpose and context to damage the
reputation of an individual. Besides what is the persuasive logic behind
posting that statement? This like presenting an argument that God exists
by quoting part of the Bible. Regardless of the quality of Dr. Chandra’s
research, presenting the issue of the validity of scientific data in a lay
journal’s style is inappropriate. We all know how scientific results can
be criticized or debated, what the BMJ has done is of little relevance in
this regard. Dr. Smith should be reminded that neither Memorial University
or Dr. Chandra’s non-responsiveness to his questions makes the accused
guilty. This is the duty of a special inquiry or a judicial process. He
also should be reminded that the least we expect from an editor is to
respect the integrity of researchers and scientists, so I’m really
disturbed by the title of Dr. Smith’s response “The BMJ's continuing
doubts on the work of Professor Chandra”. This is changing the issue from
questioning the validity of a research work to damaging the integrity of a
researcher. In essence, the BMJ allowed itself to go on and damage the
reputation of a person based on suspicions and allegations
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Very serious questions have been raised about the work of Professor
Chandra, and those questions can be satisfactorily answered only by
Professor Chandra cooperating fully with an inquiry conducted by the
Memorial University of Newfoundland--preferably with independent input. If
he does not cooperate then the questions will remain, and his critics will
reach their own conclusions. Currently he is not cooperating.
Nobody should attack Caroline White, the BMJ journalist who wrote our
story. She did an excellent job in difficult circumstances.
I am the person to attack. I initiated the complaint to the
university and the news story.
There are many ways by which people attack stories that they don't
like. One is to make attacks on the author rather than on his or her ideas
and words. Another is to find a small error in a piece and then suggest
that the whole piece is incorrect. Both of these methods have been used in
this case--and they should be seen for what they are, diversions from the
main issue.
Richard Smith, editor, BMJ
Competing interests:
I'm the editor of the BMJ and accountablwe for all it contains. I asked the Memorial University of Newfoundland to investigate Chandra's work.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Have you decided to Spoil the Image of BMJ?
I have been following Dr.Chandra'swork for several years in the
American Jn of Clinical Nutrition and based mostly on his work, mainly
practise nutrition medicine.
There are a large no. of patients whom i have treated, applying his
discoveries and who have completely recovered from recurrent infections
like chronic tonsillitis, sinusitis etc.
The effect of improvement on memorary recall in the elderly is
amazing...to this end , my patients and myself remain indebted to
Dr.Chandra for his seminal work.
Using his discoveries , i have been able to build a substantial practice.
This is my practical, first hand experience.
In this regard, the current controversy seems to be unwarrented, since i
can vouch for the practical application of his work.
The essence of knowledge is knowing it to apply it and get consistent
results.
Dr.Devan.P.P.
Consultant ENT specialist
Bejai,
Mangalore,
India
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests