#FismansFraud - Formal Complaint Filed with University of Toronto

Fabrication, falsification and willfully misrepresenting results amongst allegations of fraud.

It’s been almost three weeks since I requested that CMAJ retract the fraudulent Fisman et al. paper they published and almost two weeks since I followed up with a full critique of the study. They acknowledged receipt, but that’s about it.

Perhaps they need a nudge?

Maybe a formal investigation by University of Toronto into the alleged fraud will help move things along? Yesterday I submitted a formal complaint of research misconduct with the University of Toronto against David N. Fisman, Ashleigh R. Tuite & Afia Amoako.

Recall: The Fisman et al. study concocted a model simulation that FLIPPED reality, the authors then asserted their findings as fact and proceeded to inform public policy based on the fabricated results. More specifically, the study leveraged a false premise to vilify the “unvaccinated” and support public policy that limits their access to public spaces. Within one week of its publication the study made its way into the House where Liberal MP, Adam van Koeverden, cited it as justification to keep the travel restrictions.

Such despicable hate science needs to be quashed, otherwise it just festers and grows. So, instead of moving on to other violators, I’ll stick with this pursuit for the time being and see how far I get in holding these fraudsters to account.

My formal complaint to the University included the following allegations of research misconduct:

A.      Fraud including the fabrication and falsification of data and results - two of the most severe violations of research integrity.

• Data fabrication is the act of making up data and reporting the made-up data as a true reflection of events. An example of fabrication includes artificially creating data when it should be collected from an actual experiment or observation, which is exactly what Fisman et al. did.

• Falsification involves a deliberate manipulation of the research process to produce a desired result, including leaving out data that goes against a desired result. Fisman et al. concocted a model to spit out the results they wanted, completely omitting any reference to real-world data that completely contradicts their results. Then they proceeded to state the contrived results as fact.

B.      Willfully misrepresenting and misinterpreting findings resulting from conducting research activities.

I outlined the various misrepresentations made by the authors in my last post. The key element here is demonstrating that the misinterpretations were willful, which seems pretty obvious since:

• The authors showed overt bias and made inappropriate, disparaging comments indicating personal prejudice;

• David N. Fisman has, on several occasions and through various media outlets, stated the findings as fact or a reflection of reality knowing that wasn't the case;

• The authors list mathematical modeling as a key area of expertise; the main author is a tenured professor who teaches mathematical epidemiology. Certainly, such individuals would understand rudimentary model building, interpretation of results and inference;

• When several medical doctors and researchers pointed out the inconsistency of the study’s findings with real-world data, the authors responded by doubling-down on their erroneous findings;

• Within one week of the publication, over a dozen rebukes submitted by 22 researchers and health care professionals were brought to the attention of the authors and posted on the CMAJ website. The authors acknowledged that they had received criticism regarding their incorrect interpretation of model results along with concerns that their model is stoking hatred. Instead of heeding these warnings, the authors suggested that any errors lie with the (mis)interpretations or lack of modelling competency of those critiquing the paper; and,

• The authors have several substantive conflicts of interest that align with the fabricated results.

C.     Lack of sufficient scientific rigour.

It is difficult to reconcile the alleged expertise of the authors with such a poorly constructed study that fails to adhere to even the most basic research protocols.

• The main author, Dr. David Fisman, is a tenured professor of epidemiology who highlights mathematical modeling & simulation along with decision analysis & cost-effectiveness analysis as research interests.

• The co-author, Dr. Ashleigh Tuite, is an infectious disease epidemiologist and mathematical modeler. In particular, she is interested in the use of mathematical models to synthesize and communicate complex information and uncertainty.

This study does not bode well for the reputation of the University of Toronto and it undermines the field of mathematical epidemiology.

The harm that comes from such scientific misconduct is massive, especially during a global pandemic where scientific results can quickly be incorporated into government policy that affects tens of millions of lives.

Whether the University of Toronto conducts a thorough investigation or not is really up to them, but the fraud is pretty blatant. Now that a formal complaint has been brought to their attention, they become complicit in the act if they choose to ignore it… and that has consequences.

Now for my next step in the #FismansFraud saga…