Refuting Star Scientific's Refutation

BOSTON (TheStreet) -- Star Scientific (STSI) confirmed Monday that Johns Hopkins Medical School has no ongoing relationship or involvement with anatabine and the human thyroiditis study. Star graciously confirmed my reporting from last week.

I'm happy to see Star come clean on the controversy. For its next step, the company should write a letter (or three) to Internet stock promoters Dr. John Faessel, Patrick Cox and Gilford Securities analyst Otis Bradley. All three men continue to mislead their followers and clients about the non-existent Star-Johns Hopkins relationship. Or, is Star only perturbed when someone writes critically about anatabine?

And while Star is coming clean, let's clear up the ongoing confusion regarding Dr. Paul Ladenson and his involvement in the anatabine thyroiditis trial. We know Johns Hopkins didn't participate so what role did Ladenson play, exactly? How much is Star paying him to consult? Who wrote Ladenson's statement describing the anatabine study that was included in Star's Jan. 7 press release? If Ladenson actually spoke those words, did he knowingly violate Johns Hopkins academic guidelines? Or, did Star attribute its own conclusions about the study to Ladenson without his permission?

By the way, Ladenson was conspicuously absent from Star's "refutation" press release Monday. If he's leading a big research effort involving anatabine from his perch at Johns Hopkins, then let's hear from him.

When it comes to the actual results from the anatabine thyroiditis study, excuse me for being circumspect given Star's refusal to present actual data. Star still hasn't explained the "magical mulligan" it took on results from last year's anatabine c-reactive protein (CRP) study. Are we ever going to see data from any study of anatabine in humans published in an academic journal or presented at a peer-reviewed medical meeting? Or, are these breathlessly positive press releases from Star -- all claiming anatabine treats a multitude of diseases -- just a marketing ploy seeking to convince the next fool to throw away $99 on a bottle of anatabine?

And yes, only a fool would believe that a non-FDA approved nutritional supplement sold over the counter and through online ads could effectively treat diseases as serious as Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis or traumatic brain injury. [Notice I didn't mention inflammation, which contrary to Star Scientific's insistence, isn't a disease.]

1 2 Next › Last »