Comments on: Another retraction for Anil Potti, with an inscrutable notice

By: JudyH

JudyH — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:21:46 +0000

Well, a look at the link to the Minnesota information tells part of the tale. The information in the public part of the application is scanty, and the board must know more than it releases to the public, but much of what is included in the application is “self-reported” and is not verified by Minnesota authorities. Nor is there any information about malpractice allegations filed or malpractice lawuits settled. Or even civil malpractice jury awards. Only felony convictions are of interest, and those are self-reported. Not much of a regulatory board, in my opinion. Minnesota might as well save its money and just mail out a license to anybody who applies. Puzzled monkey, what sayest thou about this circumstance?

By: JudyH

JudyH — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:03:09 +0000

Surely the Minnesota medical board cannot be unaware of the unethical activities of this man. And they don’t have North Dakota’s excuse that it’s hard to induce doctors to move to the state. What justification can Minnesota give for approving a medical license?

By: chirality

chirality — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 18:59:57 +0000

The narrative goes that at the time when the abstract was being published, Potti was not aware that his Nature Medicine article contained errors. He learned of these errors later and decided to retract the paper. Whether somebody pointed a proverbial gun to his head to make the decision to retract easier is unclear. This retraction caused the entire house of cards, including the joker, to collapse. Hence the current retraction.

By: failuretoreplicant

failuretoreplicant — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:24:42 +0000

I can’t believe this guy is allowed to work with patients. I hope his medical skills are better than his research skills.