From: "Sten Dreborg" To: "Strawbridge, John" Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Arne_H=F6st_hem?= , "Arne Hoest" References: Subject: Re: Professor Ranjit Chandra Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:02:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Dear Professor Strawbridge, Yes you can be of help. Thank very much for the detailed description of what has happened the last decade. There is one circumstance I would like to point on. After criticism of his work from all - Yes all well-known colleagues within the field - he wrote in a publication in 1997 / a follow up paper "Double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges showed a lower prevalence of food allergy in the whey hydrolysate group compared with the other formula groups ..." Paper: R. K. Chandra. Five-year follow-up of high-risk infants with family history of allergy who were exclusively breast-fed or fed partial whey hydrolysate, soy, and conventional cow's milk formulas. J.Pediatr.Gastroenterol.Nutr. 24 (4):380-388, 1997. However, in the original article now challenges were reported., and his definitions of e.g. eczema and other atopic diseases were not adequate. His studies are among the few concluding a beneficial effect of a partially hydrolysed whey formula from the company Nestlé. In general, even the other papers "documenting" this product by other authors have scientific flaws. I can personally do whatever you ask me to do to investigate the case further. I have great difficulties with scientific misconduct and lying. If it can be of any help, I can probably gather some internationally well known pediatric allergists to go through his papers and point on if not misconduct at least bas science. My question again: Have you tried to get the protocols of the double blind food challenges made at follow up? I assume wyou will have difficulties to find them. Have the been stolen? I take a copy to my frend Prof Arne Hoest of Odense Denmark Together with hi, I participated in writing an extesive review on the dietary prevention of allergy> In the third paper you can find soe data on the subject. A. Muraro, S. Dreborg, S. Halken, A. Host, B. Niggemann, R. Aalberse, S. H. Arshad, Av A. Berg, K. H. Carlsen, K. Duschen, P. Eigenmann, D. Hill, C. Jones, M. Mellon, G. Oldeus, A. Oranje, C. Pascual, S. Prescott, H. Sampson, M. Svartengren, Y. Vandenplas, U. Wahn, J. A. Warner, J. O. Warner, M. Wickman, and R. S. Zeiger. Dietary prevention of allergic diseases in infants and small children. Part III: Critical review of published peer-reviewed observational and interventional studies and final recommendations. Pediatr.Allergy Immunol 15 (4):291-307, 2004. A. Muraro, S. Dreborg, S. Halken, A. Host, B. Niggemann, R. Aalberse, S. H. Arshad, A. von Berg, K. H. Carlsen, K. Duschen, P. Eigenmann, D. Hill, C. Jones, M. Mellon, G. Oldeus, A. Oranje, C. Pascual, S. Prescott, H. Sampson, M. Svartengren, Y. Vandenplas, U. Wahn, J. A. Warner, J. O. Warner, M. Wickman, and R. S. Zeiger. Dietary prevention of allergic diseases in infants and small children. Part II. Evaluation of methods in allergy prevention studies and sensitization markers. Definitions and diagnostic criteria of allergic diseases. Pediatr.Allergy Immunol 15 (3):196-205, 2004. A. Muraro, S. Dreborg, S. Halken, A. Host, B. Niggemann, R. Aalberse, S. H. Arshad, Av A. Berg, K. Carlsen, K. Duschen, P. Eigenmann, D. Hill, C. Jones, M. Mellon, G. Oldeus, A. Oranje, C. Pascual, S. Prescott, H. Sampson, M. Svartengren, Y. Vandenplas, U. Wahn, J. A. Warner, J. O. Warner, M. Wickman, and R. S. Zeiger. Dietary prevention of allergic diseases in infants and small children. Part I: immunologic background and criteria for hypoallergenicity. Pediatr.Allergy Immunol 15 (2):103-111, 2004. Sincerely yours Sten Dreborg Prof emeritus, Pediatric Allergology ----- Original Message ----- From: "Strawbridge, John" To: Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:23 PM Subject: Professor Ranjit Chandra Dear Professor Dreborg, Your letter to the Dean of Medicine has been handed to me for a response. The current dean has been in his position for only a short while and knows very little of the matters surrounding Dr. Chandra. On December 31, 1993 the clinical chief of Pediatrics at the pediatric hospital where Dr. Chandra practiced wrote the (then) president of the University alleging serious scientific misconduct on the part of Dr. Chandra. The allegations stemmed from things he had been told by a research nurse working for Dr. Chandra. Essentially, her claim was that she saw the paper: Chandra RK, Singh GK, Shridhara B. Effect of feeding whey hydrolysate, soy and conventional cow milk formulas on incidence of atopic disease in high risk infants. Annals Allergy 1989; 67:141-147 She claimed that whereas the paper had been published with 72 babies in each of 4 groups, she had collected data on only 17 babies in the group receiving the whey hydrolysate formula. The president established a two-person panel of inquiry to see if there were sufficient grounds to warrant a full investigation. They concluded there were sufficient grounds and a four-person committee of investigation was established in April of 1994. They interviewed more than 50 people and looked at a large volume of documents. In the course of their investigation, Dr. Chandra could not provide ANY data. He claimed that the research nurse must have stolen it. The committee made a preliminary report in August of 1994 which was given to Dr. Chandra. Soon thereafter, the chairman of the committee became seriously ill and underwent several surgeries for a brain tumor. In August of 1995, just as the committee was finalizing its report, Dr. Chandra's lawyers submitted three large volumes of new information and criticisms of the preliminary report. Among the criticisms was an allegation of bias on the part of one or more members of the committee. Many, if not all, of the interviews of witnesses to the committee were tape recorded. Some, but not all, of the tapes were given to Dr. Chandra's lawyer. He claimed that when transcripts were made of the tapes, they showed prejudicial comments being made by one or more committee members to witnesses before they began their testimony. Furthermore, he claimed that comparisons of the taped testimony of the witnesses with what the preliminary report said about the testimony showed that the committee had chosen only damaging aspects of the testimony to use in the report and ignored positive aspects. There were also two sworn statements from technicians who did blood collecting and analysis. Their estimates of the number of samples collected and analyzed were consistent with the number of babies in the published study. The final report, without seeing the new information from the lawyer, concluded that misconduct had occurred. The president, after a further four months of legal consultations and having obtained advice from a retired professor of Medicine, wrote Dr. Chandra saying the University was ending the investigation and that there was not sufficient evidence to go further "at this time". Although this entire affair was handled as discreetly as possible, of course the whispers spread. They reached you in Sweden. Other allegations of fraud were made against Dr. Chandra for work he published in Nutrition on a multivitamin (for which he held the patent) and its positive effects on lowering infections and improving mental functioning in the elderly. This was in 2001. Subsequently, Nutrition retracted that paper and published an article stating eight reasons why they had done so. Interestingly, when we asked for his raw data, this time he blamed the Faculty of Medicine for losing it or stealing it when his office was moved. He retired August 2, 2002. On January 31, February 1 and February 2 of 2006 the Canadian Broadcast Corporation showed a three-part documentary called "The Secret Life of Dr. Chandra" which painted him as not only committing scientific fraud but also claimed he had 120 bank accounts scattered around the world with more than $2 million (Canadian) in them. They portrayed the University as having covered up his fraud. Below are several links to web sites with further information. http://www.cbc.ca/national/news/chandra/ http://www.mun.ca/marcomm/chandra.php http://today.mun.ca/news.php?news_id=1780 http://www.sethroberts.net/articles/chandra/2005_01_Nutrition_retraction .pdf In summary: There are reasons to be suspicious about the infant formula studies (there were follow-ups of the babies) but there is no definitive proof of wrongdoing. However, in my personal view, there is every reason to suspect that the data were invented for the study on the multivitamins and the elderly. If I can be of any further help, please let me know. Jack Strawbridge, Ph.D. Director of Faculty Relations Memorial University St. John's, Newfoundland Canada A1C 5S7 (709) 737-2505 (voice) (709) 737-2453 (fax)