retraction

Via The Scientist, this is a sad, sad tale:

"Editor Michael Meguid wrote that the journal was "forced to act" after a series of "serious questions" were raised. The retraction outlines eight specific reasons for the decision, "all of which [Chandra] either ignored or dealt with inadequately in his responses to his critics," according to Meguid, over whose signature the withdrawal appears."

and

"There was also concern that "Chandra failed to declare that he holds a patent on the tested supplement formula and has a financial stake in it because the supplement was licensed to Javaan Corporation, a company founded by his daughter, that sells the supplement," Meguid wrote in the retraction."

greed, I suppose. The upshot is that even though it took a couple of years, the paper was eventually retracted.