Conventional Medical Journal Accuses Leading Science Skeptic of Using Fraudulent Sources and “Serious Ethical Breach”

A recent editorial in the New Zealand Journal of Medicine describes how Dr. David Colquhoun, a pharmacology professor and one of the leading science skeptics and attackers of alternative medicine (including homeopathy) has used unsubstantiated sources and even non-existent Medical Journals as sources for an attack on chiropractics.

” Is it acceptable to make up a reference to try and slip any unsupported statement into a “scientific” argument and thereby give it some degree of credibility?” asked Frank Frizelle, the chief editor of the conventional Medical Journal.

This same skeptic, David Colquhoun, has attacked homeopathy and described it as dangerous using a similar methodology. Other skeptic internet web sites use similar fraudulent strategies- referring to other skeptic web sites and non existent statistics attempting to make their opinion look like fact.

Is this reference correct?
Frank Frizelle
The NZMJ receives a large number of manuscripts every year and 10–15% of these are published. The editorial staff do not check the details of the submitted author’s references except to ensure they appear in the correct style and to find missing details such as article name, page numbers, and authors on PubMed’s Single Citation Matcher. This is the normal situation with most journals, because to check every detail in the references is a burden that journal editorial staff and reviewers could not realistically cope with. Therefore we rely on authors to list their references accurately and we suggest they check using the Single Citation Matcher as outlined in the NZMJ Instructions to Authors: http://www.nzmj.com/journal/Instructions%20to%20authors.pdf

Mistakes inevitably happen and some journals make a significant point of highlighting and rectifying such mistakes­as in the “department of error” found in the Lancet. When such an error happens we at the NZMJ like to work with the authors to correct the error and republish the correct reference or data via an erratum.
Recently a reader send us the following email:

The paper is Doctor Who? Inappropriate use of titles by some alternative “medicine” practitioners. Colquhoun D. N Z Med J. 2008 Jul 25;121(1278):6-10.
The quote [in question] is the public should be informed that chiropractic manipulation is the number one reason for people suffering stroke under the age of 45.
Long PH. Stroke and Manipulation. J Quality Health Care. 2004:3:8-10
This quote actually comes from the following blog article http://www.skepticreport.com/medicalquackery/strokespinal.htm

I have attached all my personal communications with Colquhoun. They demonstrate this is not a citation error. Prof Colquhoun believes the origin of the quote doesn’t matter because Long was quoting from a Canadian Neurologists’ report (this is also incorrect). As you can see he fails to provide any evidence at all to support the existance of the “J Quality Health Care.” This would not be an issue at all if he had admitted it came from a blog site­but I guess the link would have eroded the credibility of the quote.
Colquhoun ’s belief that my forwarding this complaint is me “resorting to threats” is the final nail in the coffin. If he had any leg to stand on where is the threat?

This may seem pedantic but it surely reflects a serious ethical breach. Is it acceptable to make up a reference to try and slip any unsupported statement into a “scientific” argument and thereby give it some degree of credibility?

Incidentally, at the end of the article, conflicts of interest are listed as none. As Colquhoun is a Professor of Pharmacology and much of his research funding no doubt comes from the pharmaceutical industry how can he have no conflict of interest with therapies that do not advocate the use of drugs and compete directly against the billions spent on pain medications each year?

If I may quote Colquhoun himself in his defence of his article (Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 05-September-2008, Vol 121 No 1281) I’ll admit, though, that perhaps ‘intellect’ is not what’s deficient in this case, but rather honesty.

David Owen
Mr Owen had emailed the author to enquire as to the source of the reference and ask if there had there been a mistake. I made the same enquiry and received the reply below:
I admitted doing something that I criticise other people for doing and that is citing a paper without having read it. The Journal is not listed in PubMed and I can’t find it either. As reason (not excuse) all I can offer is to say that I yielded to the temptation to use a widely cited quotation without checking its source properly. The actual source seems to be…
Long, PH (2004) Stroke and Spinal Manipulation http://skepticeport.com/sr/?p=88
…so same author, same title, same quotation but different reference.
David Colquhoun
Mr Owen is correct and the reference is wrong. The quote the public should be informed that chiropractic manipulation is the number one reason for people suffering stroke under the age of 45 appears not to be from Long PH. Stroke and Manipulation. J Quality Health Care. 2004:3:8-10 but from the website http://www.skepticreport.co-medicalquackery/strokespinal.htm
In fact even the Journal of Quality Health Care appears impossible to find (at least for me). While the International Journal of Quality Health Care appears on the web, this is not the same journal. The usual search engines for identification of the journal fail to find it as do searches on the authors name in places such as PubMed and Ovid.
In conclusion it is important for everyone’s creditability that references are correct and that when queried the authors make the appropriate correction.
Competing interests: None known.
Author information: Frank A Frizelle, Editor, New Zealand Medical Journal (NZMJ)
Correspondence: Professor Frank A Frizelle, Department of Surgery, Christchurch Hospital, Private Bag 4710, Christchurch, New Zealand. Fax: +64 (0)3 3640352; email: frank.frizelle@cdhb.govt.nz