Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

A response from Dr. Nancy Olivieri

Nancy Olivieri
CMAJ February 28, 2006 174 (5) 661-662; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1060039
Nancy Olivieri
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

I write to correct the errors and misrepresentations in the review by Hoey and Todkill1 („The Olivieri story, take three”; Oct. 11, 2005) of Miriam Shuchman's book.2 Many physicians may wish to appreciate more completely the significance of the extensive list of inaccuracies and omissions in Shuchman's story, which I provided to the CMAJ five months before this review appeared.

Contrary to the claims of the book review, the University of Toronto did not commission the 1998 „Naimark report.” This was funded by the Board of Trustees of the Hospital for Sick Children (Sick Kids'), a body distinct from the University. The first effective involvement by the University came only after it was pressed to defend my academic freedom by international experts, the University of Toronto Faculty Association, and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT).

By their title („The Olivieri story, take three”), Hoey and Todkill imply that Shuchman's book was the third legitimate „take” on the long-running saga involving me, the University, a drug company and Sick Kids'. Positioning Shuchman's „take” as authoritative does not acknowledge that her account relies on anonymous quotes, unnamed sources, and allegations long since discredited.

Presumably (according to Hoey and Todkill) „take one” was the Naimark report, and „take two” was the report of the independent inquiry commissioned by the CAUT (2001; which referenced not only all the information accepted by Naimark but several hundred additional documents). On Hoey's and Todkill's own reasoning, „take three” should be the Report of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO; 2001) — confirming the CAUT Report's findings and concluding that my conduct had been „commendable.” „Take four” should be the University of Toronto's dismissal (2002) of the allegations made against me by Sick Kids' and based on Naimark's report. Because Hoey and Todkill omitted to mention these later reports, the reader may forget that they fully exonerated me. No reasonable person could imagine that any „legal settlements” could have been „brokered” if the Naimark's „findings” against me had retained credibility. These later reports have been followed by numerous other „takes” authored by scholars and medical researchers upholding my research methods and integrity. Why were the „takes” that exonerated me — all a matter of public record — not noted by the CMAJ editors?

It should be a matter of concern to CMAJ readers that, long after a series of independent inquiries dismissed Naimark's „findings” against me as baseless, Hoey and Todkill attempt to rehabilitate Naimark's report. Even Shuchman's book, while reporting that Naimark relied heavily on allegations by a physician whose „... claims were damaging to Olivieri ... persuasive ... and led directly to Naimark's conclusion ...”, acknowledges that this physician was disciplined by the University and the CPSO for „professional misconduct” in connection with attacks against me.3 In this respect, Hoey and Todkill show even more bias against me than the book they reviewed.

CMAJ readers might also be interested to know that, 12 days prior to publication of the review, an expert panel convened by the FDA unanimously recommended that Exjade (deferasirox), an oral iron chelator manufactured by Novartis, be licensed for prescription sale in the USA.4 The date of this FDA panel hearing had been publicly announced on August 30, 2005, shortly before the CMAJ editors hurriedly undertook to produce their review — of a book they had ignored for months. In her book, Shuchman implies that a different orally active iron chelator, deferiprone, should be licensed by the FDA — while presenting a comparison (from an anonymous source) of certain qualities of Novartis' defasirox to „Metamucil.” The FDA nonetheless accepted the advice of its expert panel, and licensed Novartis' defasirox.5

This is not the first time these CMAJ editors have commented derisively on those who understand the significance of this controversy differently from themselves (and Shuchman). For instance, in 2002 they issued this statement: „We thought we'd heard enough, and written enough, about Nancy Olivieri's dispute ... We entertained the idea of using [The Olivieri Report]6 as a doorstop.”7 Their bias becomes more apparent in light of the fact that these editors published this comment after the „doorstop”'s findings — exonerating me and refuting Naimark's report — were independently confirmed by the CPSO and the University of Toronto.

Finally, respected medical journals now observe guidelines with respect to conflicts of interest — including immediate family connections — during submission, review and publication of data. Hoey and Todkill apparently do not hold themselves to this minimum standard: in their flattering review of Shuchman's book, they omitted to disclose that Shuchman's husband, Dr. Donald Redelmeier, is a member of the CMAJ's editorial board. They also do not disclose that Dr. Redelmeier has been a co-author with a physician whose allegations against me were relied upon in the Naimark report.8

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Hoey J, Todkill AM. The Olivieri story, take three [book review]. CMAJ 2005;173(8):914-5.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Shuchman M. The drug trial. Toronto: Random House; 2005.
  3. 3.↵
    Shuchman M. The drug trial, at pages 332, 333 and 347.
  4. 4.↵
    Cooley's Anemia Foundation. Cooley's Anemia Foundation applauds decision on Exjade; Oral chelator could reduce patient mortality” [press release]. 30 Sept 2005.
  5. 5.↵
    FDA approves Novartis iron-removal drug. PharmacyOneSource.com. 2 Nov 2005
  6. 6.↵
    Thompson J, Baird P, Downie J. The Olivieri Report: the complete text of the report of the independent committee of inquiry commissioned by the Canadian Association of University Teachers. Toronto: Lorimer; 2001.
  7. 7.↵
    Questions of interest [editorial]. CMAJ 2002;166 (4):413.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Juurlink DN, Tenenbein M, Koren G, Redelmeier DA. Iron poisoning in young children: association with the birth of a sibling. CMAJ 2003;168:1539-42.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 174 (5)
CMAJ
Vol. 174, Issue 5
28 Feb 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A response from Dr. Nancy Olivieri
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
A response from Dr. Nancy Olivieri
Nancy Olivieri
CMAJ Feb 2006, 174 (5) 661-662; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1060039

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
A response from Dr. Nancy Olivieri
Nancy Olivieri
CMAJ Feb 2006, 174 (5) 661-662; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1060039
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • The Olivieri story, take three
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Coexisting failures do not diminish the stature of a giant
  • Dare we hope
  • Highlighting obesity as a risk factor for endometrial cancer
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire