On 2016 Jul 19, Jon Jureidini commented:

In light of findings from our recent publication, on 5 May 2016 Jon Jureidini wrote to Dr. Freedman, editor in chief of the American Journal of Psychiatry, to request the retraction of this Forest Laboratories report of study CIT-MD-18.

Jureidini wrote 'CIT-MD-18 study clearly failed to demonstrate efficacy for citalopram in children and adolescents. However, by way of Forest-sponsored ghostwriting and data manipulation this study was misrepresented as positive, and used to gain a license for escitalopram for the treatment of adolescent depression. Subsequent to the publication of the Wagner et al. article, you published an editor’s note on its authorship and its failure to report the negative Lundbeck study of citalopram in the treatment of depression in children and adolescents (Freedman R, Roy MD, Am J Psych 2009, 166: 942-943). You also published criticism of obvious problems in the reporting of the CIT-MD-18 trial results (Martin A, et al. Am J Psych 2005, 162:817). Your journal took no further corrective action at that time. With the recent publication of our article, ‘The citalopram CIT-MD-18 pediatric depression trial: A deconstruction of medical ghostwriting, data manipulation and academic malfeasance’, in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine (2016, 28:33-43, attached) we, along with other scientists, have drawn attention to further serious misrepresentations that were published in the Wagner et al. paper. As a result of recently declassified documents from litigation, the extent of Forest Pharmaceutical’s data manipulation is only just becoming clear, and is beyond what was available to the public previously. Some of this declassified information is documented in the enclosed article; however, more will be revealed as more documents are released in the public domain in the near future. We are sure that you agree that the integrity of science depends on disinterest in hypotheses and rigorous adherence to the results of experimental testing. This is particularly important in medicine where significant harm to patients can result from the failure to embrace the ideal of evidence-based medicine.'

On this basis Jureidini asked Dr Freedman to retract the Wagner et al. article. He received no reply for over 2 months, until after a second follow up email on 12 July, Dr Freedman sent an email which cursorily stated that he would not retract the article.

We understand that retracting a paper is a major decision, and that an editor will have misgivings about doing so. We do not understand the hostility and disrespect in dealing with a legitimate request.

On 2016 May 07, John Nardo commented:

This is a ghost-written and distorted report of the clinical trial. see: The citalopram CIT-MD-18 pediatric depression trial: Deconstruction of medical ghostwriting, data mischaracterisation and academic malfeasance by Jon Jureidini, Jay Amsterdam, and Leemon McHenry in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine. 2016 28[1]:33-43.

On 2016 May 07, John Nardo commented:

This is a ghost-written and distorted report of the clinical trial. see: The citalopram CIT-MD-18 pediatric depression trial: Deconstruction of medical ghostwriting, data mischaracterisation and academic malfeasance by Jon Jureidini, Jay Amsterdam, and Leemon McHenry in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine. 2016 28[1]:33-43.

On 2016 Jul 19, Jon Jureidini commented:

In light of findings from our recent publication, on 5 May 2016 Jon Jureidini wrote to Dr. Freedman, editor in chief of the American Journal of Psychiatry, to request the retraction of this Forest Laboratories report of study CIT-MD-18.

Jureidini wrote 'CIT-MD-18 study clearly failed to demonstrate efficacy for citalopram in children and adolescents. However, by way of Forest-sponsored ghostwriting and data manipulation this study was misrepresented as positive, and used to gain a license for escitalopram for the treatment of adolescent depression. Subsequent to the publication of the Wagner et al. article, you published an editor’s note on its authorship and its failure to report the negative Lundbeck study of citalopram in the treatment of depression in children and adolescents (Freedman R, Roy MD, Am J Psych 2009, 166: 942-943). You also published criticism of obvious problems in the reporting of the CIT-MD-18 trial results (Martin A, et al. Am J Psych 2005, 162:817). Your journal took no further corrective action at that time. With the recent publication of our article, ‘The citalopram CIT-MD-18 pediatric depression trial: A deconstruction of medical ghostwriting, data manipulation and academic malfeasance’, in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine (2016, 28:33-43, attached) we, along with other scientists, have drawn attention to further serious misrepresentations that were published in the Wagner et al. paper. As a result of recently declassified documents from litigation, the extent of Forest Pharmaceutical’s data manipulation is only just becoming clear, and is beyond what was available to the public previously. Some of this declassified information is documented in the enclosed article; however, more will be revealed as more documents are released in the public domain in the near future. We are sure that you agree that the integrity of science depends on disinterest in hypotheses and rigorous adherence to the results of experimental testing. This is particularly important in medicine where significant harm to patients can result from the failure to embrace the ideal of evidence-based medicine.'

On this basis Jureidini asked Dr Freedman to retract the Wagner et al. article. He received no reply for over 2 months, until after a second follow up email on 12 July, Dr Freedman sent an email which cursorily stated that he would not retract the article.

We understand that retracting a paper is a major decision, and that an editor will have misgivings about doing so. We do not understand the hostility and disrespect in dealing with a legitimate request.