Dove Press Retracts Dr. Marty Hinz’s Articles

Stephen Barrett, M.D.
March 3, 2021

Between 2009 and 2016, Dove Press published 20 articles that Marty Hinz, M.D., used to promote dietary supplements marketed by a company he founded. In 2020 and 2021, Dove and its parent company (Taylor & Francis) retracted all of these articles. This report describes what happened.

Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

Dove offers “open access” that requires payment of a processing fee as a condition of publication. Its Web site lists 93 journals, 72 of which are currently indexed by PubMed. In February 2018, I asked Dove quality-control officials to investigate a series of 20 articles by Hinz and colleagues that I believe did not fully disclose their financial conflicts of interest. The conflict-of-interest guidelines of International Committee of Journal of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) state that authors should:

  • Disclose financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what they wrote in the submitted work, including interactions with ANY entity that could be considered broadly relevant to the work
  • Disclose all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be paid) directly to them or their institution on their behalf over the 36 months prior to submission of the work. This should include all monies from sources with relevance to the submitted work, not just monies from the entity that sponsored the research. Interactions with the work’s sponsor that are outside the submitted work should also be listed here. If there is any question, it is usually better to disclose a relationship than not to do so. . . .
  • Report other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what they wrote in the submitted work [1].

The journals that published the 20 articles are on ICMJE’s list of subscribers to its guidelines [2]. The guidelines also state that corrections should be published as soon as possible and incorporated in a new version of the relevant article [3].

For many years, Hinz claimed that amino acid supplements could improve Parkinson’s disease and various other conditions by balancing neurotransmitter chemicals in the brain. Since the mid-1990s, he developed a network of companies that market his ideas and clinics that used his protocols to treat patients [4]. Between 2009 and 2016, Dove Press published 20 articles that his network had used for promotional purposes. In my opinion, full disclosure of the relevant conflicts of interest should have disclosed the following:

  • Hinz owns NeuroResearch Clinics, which markets continuing medical education (CME) courses. These teach practitioners who to administer “Hinz protocols” that use dietary supplements intended to balance the relevant neurotransmitters.
  • The supplements used for the protocols are supplied by the West Duluth Distribution Company, which does business as doing business as CHK Nutrition. Amy Gunther-Hinz (Hinz’s daughter) runs the company, Until 2011, Hinz had a direct financial interest in the the company. Thias M. Hinz (Hinz’s wife) is or was a shareholder.
  • Hinz also owns DBS Labs, which does testing needed to implement Hinz’s protocols.
  • Thomas Uncini, Ph.D., who co-authored 14 of the articles, is the medical director of DBS Labs and has been a member of the CME course faculty.
  • Alvin Stein, M.D., who co-authored 16 of the articles, operated a clinic that utilized the Hinz protocol and derived income from patient fees and the sale of supplements marketed by CHK Nutrition. He was also a member of the CME course faculty.
  • Ted Cole, M.D., who co-authored seven of the articles, operates a clinic that utilizes the Hinz protocol and derives income from patient fees and the sale of supplements marketed by CHK Nutrition. He and has also been a member of the CME course faculty.
  • Beth McDougall, M.D., who co-authored one of the articles, operates a clinic that utilizes the Hinz protocol and derives income from patient fees and the sale of supplements marketed by CHK Nutrition.
  • Mark Westaway, M.D., who co-authored one of the articles, operates a clinic that utilizes the Hinz protocol and derives income from patient fees and the sale of supplements marketed by CHK Nutrition.
  • Patricia Ryan, M.D., who co-authored one of the article operates a clinic that utilizes the Hinz protocol and derives income from patient fees and the sale of supplements marketed by CHK Nutrition.

However, checking the disclosure statements, I found the following deficits [5]:

  • When originally published, only one of the 20 articles mentioned CHK Nutrition, but it failed to explain that CHK Nutrition sells the supplements used in the Hinz Protocol.
  • When originally published, none of the 20 articles mentioned any connection between CHK Nutrition and Hinz’s wife or daughter. In 2016, he disclosed that his wife was a shareholder of West Duluth Distribution Company, but he failed to explain that the company is the parent company of CHK Nutrition or what it does.
  • Three of the 20 articles contain no disclosures. A 2015 correction to one of them mentioned Hinz’s “relationship” with West Duluth Distribution but did not disclose the conflicts of the article’s co-authors.
  • Only 13 of of the 20 articles mention that Hinz owns or “has a relationship with” DBS Labs, but they do not explain what DBS does or how he benefits financially from the tests needed to administer the Hinz protocol.
  • Only 13 of the 20 articles mentioned that Hinz owns or “has a relationship with” NeuroResearch Clinics, but they do not explain what NeuroResearch Clinics does or how he can benefit directly from course fees and indirectly from lab tests and supplement sales generated by the teachings.
  • Thirteen of the 16 articles co-authored by Dr. Uncini disclose that he is medical director of DBS labs, but they do not explain how DBS labs can benefit financially from tests needed to administer the Hinz protocol.
  • None of the articles co-authored by Drs. Stein, Cole, McDougall, Westaway, or Ryan disclose how they would gain from patient fees and the sale of supplements marketed by CHK Nutrition.

In March 2020, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice reprimanded Hinz for “inappropriate practices” and ordered him to complete continuing medical education coursework on medical ethics and pay a civil penalty of $7,187.80. The board’s order indicates that Hinz admitted that he interacted with patients through the Internet and was compensated through a royalty agreement with CHK, which provides supplements he recommends during the consultations [6]. In 2021, Hinz told a Minneapolis Star-Tribune reporter that the royalties—43% on gross sales of the products he had invented—were paid to NeuroResearch, which paid him [7].

Dove’s Investigation

In February 2018, I asked Dove’s quality-control officials to remedy the lack of adequate disclosure. Dove immediately acknowledged my first message and told me several times they were giving the matter high priority. However, when 16 months passed without any publicly visible action, it appeared to me that they were taking too long.

Ivan Oransky, M.D., of Retraction Watch agreed that Dove was taking too long to adjudicate the conflict-of-interest portion of my complaint. In April 2019, when he queried Dove Press, he received a response from the public relations arm of Taylor & Francis, which had acquired Dove in September 2017. In August 2019, Oransky asked again and was told that they needed more time to “fully investigate.” [8].

In April 2020, Dove and Taylor & Francis linked this statement to each of the 20 online articles:

The Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of [Journal Name] wish to issue an Expression of Concern for the published article. Concerns have been raised regarding the alleged undisclosed competing interests of some of the authors, and the level of information provided on methodology, study data and process of institutional ethical approval for the published article. [Journal Name] would like to alert readers of this while our investigation is still ongoing and we will provide an update following the conclusion of our investigation. The authors have been informed of these concerns and of our investigation.

This was a small step toward what is needed. But in December 2020 the publishers took a big one—linking this statement to 14 of the 20 online articles:

The Editor-in-chief and Publisher of [journal name] wish to retract the published article. Following the conclusion of our investigation the decision has been made to retract the published article. The authors did not provide the required IRB and informed consent information relating to this study and it was determined the study did not meet the standard ethical publication requirements for studies involving human subjects in research. These requirements are based on guidelines issued by the World Medical Association and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Additionally, the authors did not provide the required study protocols, raw data and other study documents relating to this study as requested. Given our concerns about the standard of research ethics, competing interests and that the authors have not supplied the information we requested to verify and validate the reported findings, the editor has determined the article should be retracted. Our decision-making was informed by our policy on publishing ethics and integrity and the COPE guidelines on retraction. The retracted article will remain online to maintain the scholarly record, but it will be digitally watermarked on each page as “Retracted”.

This statement indicated that Dove was concerned about problems with the articles that were not mentioned in my complaints, which explains why the “full investigation” took so long,

In 2021, Dove and Taylor & Francis retracted the remaining six articles with this explanation:

The Editor-in-chief and Publisher of [journal name] wish to retract the published article. This review article cites several original research articles published by the authors, which have recently been retracted. This article draws on the findings from those original research articles to form central arguments and discussion, and as a result of the research articles’ retraction, the argument presented in this article is no longer valid and the editor has determined it should be retracted. Our decision-making was informed by our policy on publishing ethics and integrity and the COPE guidelines on retraction. The retracted article will remain online to maintain the scholarly record, but it will be digitally watermarked on each page as “Retracted”.

References
  1. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. ICMJE Web site, accessed Feb 25, 2019.
  2. ICMJE form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. ICMJE, April 26, 2013.
  3. Corrections, retractions, republications and version control. ICMJE Web site, accessed Feb 25, 2019.
  4. Barrett S. A skeptical look at Marty Hinz and his views of “neurotransmitter-related diseases.” Quackwatch, April 27, 2020.
  5. Barrett S. Recommended conflict-of-interest disclosures for Hinz papers. Quackwatch, March 9, 2019
  6. Stipulation and order. In the matter of the medical license of Martin C. Hinz, M.D.. Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, March 14, 2020.
  7. Carlson J, Johnson B. Doctor’s articles on Parkinson’t retracted. Minneapolis Star-Tribune, July 23, 2021.
  8. Oransky I. Conflicts of disinterest: Why does it take a publisher 18 months, and counting, to correct papers? Retraction Watch, August 7, 2019.