Journal to Retract Alzheimer's Study After Investigation Finds Misconduct
Posted2 months agoActive2 months ago
retractionwatch.comResearchstory
skepticalnegative
Debate
10/100
Academic IntegrityResearch MisconductAlzheimer's Research
Key topics
Academic Integrity
Research Misconduct
Alzheimer's Research
A journal is retracting an Alzheimer's study due to investigation findings of misconduct, highlighting concerns about research integrity in the scientific community.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
3h
Peak period
1
3-4h
Avg / period
1
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 21, 2025 at 12:57 AM EDT
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 21, 2025 at 4:08 AM EDT
3h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
1 comments in 3-4h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 21, 2025 at 4:08 AM EDT
2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45652602Type: storyLast synced: 11/17/2025, 9:08:33 AM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
My own experience working with suicidal teenagers with depression, presecribed the anti-depressant praxil rings loud and true here.
Paxil, that SSRI wonder drug, not so wonderful after all.
Remember when our teenagers were dying by suicide simply because they were depressed. 20 years too late we have an "expression of concern".
https://retractionwatch.com/2025/10/16/controversial-paxil-s...
The 2001 paper, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (JAACAP), reported findings from a randomized trial known as “Study 329,” which concluded the antidepressant Paxil was safe and effective in kids ages 12 to 18.
This paper has been cited 451 times by those complicit money grabbing journals.
A huge outcry, an "Expression of concern", 20 year too late, after a recent lawsuit against AACAP and Elsevier.
Peter Doshi, a senior editor for The BMJ who has been critical of Study 329 for at least a decade, called the expression of concern “devoid of detail.
In a complaint filed September 8 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, attorney George W. Murgatroyd III argued the journal is violating the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act by continuing to “publish, distribute, and sell a fraudulent scientific article that contains material facts” that mislead the public and endanger adolescent mental health and safety. AACAP and Elsevier are profiting from the article by charging readers $41.50 on the JAACAP website and $33.39 on Elsevier’s ScienceDirect website to buy access to the paper, according to the complaint.