Jamal, Abida Sophina (CPSO#: 63935)

Current Status: Revoked: Discipline Committee as of 06 Mar 2018

CPSO Registration Class: None as of 06 Mar 2018

Indicates a concern or additional information

Summary

Former Name: No Former Name

Gender: Female

Languages Spoken: English

Education:University of Toronto, 1991

Practice Information

Primary Location of Practice
Practice Address Not Available

Specialties

Specialty Issued On Type
Internal Medicine Effective: 30 Jun 1995 RCPSC Specialist

Postgraduate Training

Please note: This information may not be a complete record of postgraduate training.

University of Toronto, 17 Jun 1991 to 15 Jun 1992
Other - Comprehensive Internship

University of Toronto, 01 Jul 1992 to 30 Jun 1993
Resident 2 - Internal Medicine

University of Toronto, 01 Jul 1993 to 30 Jun 1994
Resident 3 - Internal Medicine

University of Toronto, 01 Jul 1994 to 30 Jun 1995
Resident 4 - Endocrinology and Metabolism

University of Toronto, 01 Jul 1995 to 30 Jun 1996
Resident 5 - Endocrinology and Metabolism

Registration History

Action Issue Date
First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate Effective: 17 Jun 1991
Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 05 Jul 1995
Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate Effective: 01 May 2017
Terms and conditions imposed on certificate Effective: 01 May 2017
Revoked: Discipline Committee. Effective: 06 Mar 2018

Previous Hearings

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 06 Mar 2018
Summary:

On March 6, 2018, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Dr. Abida Sophina Jamal committed an 
act of professional misconduct, in that she has failed to maintain the standard of practice of the 
profession, in that she has engaged in an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, 
having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, 
dishonourable, or unprofessional, and in that she has engaged in conduct unbecoming a physician. 
 
Dr. Jamal is a physician who received her certificate of registration authorizing independent practice 
from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”) on June 17, 1991. In 2002, 
she completed her PhD at the University of Toronto in the field of clinical epidemiology of 
osteoporosis, with specific interest in the use of nitrate drug treatment.  
       
Between 2007 and 2015, Dr. Jamal held an appointment to the Active Staff at Women’s College 
Hospital (“WCH”) as well as an appointment as a Scientist at WCH’s Research Institute. She was 
also appointed as an Associate Professor in the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto.   In 
addition to her research activities, she practiced endocrinology at WCH. 
      
Dr. Jamal resigned from WCH in 2015. Up to the hearing date, she continued to practise 
endocrinology in the community in an office-based setting in Toronto.   
 
Dr. Jamal’s Research in Osteoporosis: three research studies 
 
Dr. Jamal had been involved in the publication of study protocols and research investigations related 
to the use of nitrate drug treatment in osteoporosis. She conducted three different research studies: 
the JAMA Study, the Sclerostin Study, and the NABT Study. 
 
The JAMA Study  
 
Dr. Jamal was the Principal Investigator in a study entitled “Effect of Nitroglycerin Ointment on 
Bone Density and Strength in Postmenopausal Women: A Randomized Trial”. This study was 
published by Dr. Jamal, Dr. Richard Eastell, MD, University of Sheffield and Dr. Stephen Cummings 
MD, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute (“CPMCRI”), among others, in the Journal 
of the American Medical Association (“JAMA”) on February 23, 2011.  
      
The JAMA Study was a double blind placebo-controlled randomized control trial designed to 
determine if nitroglycerin increases lumbar spine bone mineral density and to evaluate changes in 
bone mineral density.  The JAMA Study concluded that among postmenopausal women, 
nitroglycerin ointments modestly increased bone mineral density and decreased bone resportion. The 
Canadian Institute of Health Research (“CIHR”) funded the JAMA Study in the amount of 
$536,796.00. It involved the participation of 400 women in the run-in phase and ultimately enrolled 
243 postmenopausal women between the ages of 50 and 80. 
 
As Principal Investigator, Dr. Jamal had full access to all of the data in the study and took 
responsibility for the integrity of and the accuracy of the data analysis.  
 
The Sclerostin Study 
 
Following the publication of the JAMA Study in 2011, a subgroup of subjects were included in a 
follow-up study conducted by Dr. Jamal and others. Its purpose was to examine the possible role of 
sclerostin, a negative regulator of bone turnover, as an underlying mechanism for the effects of 
nitrates on osteoporosis as had been previously reported in the JAMA study.   
 
A manuscript was prepared and submitted to a journal but was rejected. Dr. Jamal was among the co-
authors of this study.  It concluded that nitroglycerin substantially increases bone mass in 
postmenopausal women by decreasing sclerostin production.  
 
The NABT Study  
 
On October 25, 2013, Dr. Cummings, in collaboration with Dr. Jamal and others, submitted a 
planning grant application to the National Institutes of Health entitled “The NO Fracture Planning 
Grant”.  Building on the results of the JAMA Study, Dr. Jamal and her collaborators sought funding 
for a large scale randomized control trial to test the efficacy and safety of daily nitroglycerin 
treatment to prevent osteoporotic fractures (the “Fracture Trial”). The results of the JAMA study are 
quoted in the grant application as part of the rationale for the Fracture Trial. As a preliminary step, 
Dr. Jamal and others commenced a study to establish the appropriate formulation and dose of nitrate 
treatment for use in the anticipated Fracture Trial. This study is known as the “Nitrates and Bone 
Turnover (NABT): trial to select the best nitrate preparation.  
      
The NABT Study was conducted between 2012 and 2014. The study was funded by CIHR in the 
amount of $263,914, in addition to other sources of funding. The study enrolled 420 women in the 
run-in phase and ultimately enrolled 210 women aged 50 or older.  
      
Dr. Jamal is identified as the Primary Investigator in the NABT Study Protocol. 
      
Professional Misconduct  
 
On October 9, 2015, WCH concluded an investigation into the three research studies that had been 
conducted by Dr. Jamal (the JAMA Study, the Sclerostin Study, and the NABT Study). WCH found, 
and Dr. Jamal admits, that in respect of these studies, and in respect of the WCH investigation, Dr. 
Jamal engaged in research misconduct including: 
 
- Dr. Jamal intentionally manipulated study data in each of the JAMA Study, the Sclerostin Study 
  and the NABT Study, with the intention of supporting the underlying study hypothesis in each 
  case; 
- Dr. Jamal made wholly unjustified and completely inappropriate allegations against her Research 
  Associate; 
- Dr. Jamal systematically altered patient records to match previously altered datasets; 
- Dr. Jamal deleted relevant evidence after she had knowledge of the investigation; 
- Dr. Jamal failed to maintain and properly archive raw data; 
- Dr. Jamal failed to make raw data available to collaborators; 
- Dr Jamal intentionally represented falsified and/or fabricated data as raw data; 
- Dr. Jamal used falsified results from one study to apply, obtain and use funding for the follow-up 
  Sclerostin and NABT studies. 
 
Concerns Regarding the Integrity of Data Arose in the NABT Study 
 
In July 2014, the collaborators in the NABT Study commenced the process of collecting and 
analyzing data. Serum and urine samples were analyzed by the University of Sheffield (the institution 
affiliated with Dr. Eastell) and the data derived from the samples was sent to Toronto for statistical 
analysis. Dr. Jamal’s role was to complete the statistical analysis of the data collected in the NABT 
Study. While Dr. Jamal was assisted by her Research Associate in data entry tasks, her Research 
Associate was not trained to analyze data, and it was Dr. Jamal’s sole responsibility to analyze data 
and run the statistical analysis.  
      
On August 18, 2014, Dr. Jamal’s Research Associate completed the data entry and provided Dr. 
Jamal with data files to use in her statistical analysis. Between August 20 and 25, 2014, Dr. Jamal 
generated a statistical analysis that she shared with her collaborators. As was revealed in the 
subsequent WCH investigation, unbeknownst to her colleagues and collaborators, Dr. Jamal had 
manipulated the data and falsified these study results. 
 
On September 13, 2014, Dr. Jamal shared the favourable results of the statistical analysis on the 
NABT Study to a small group at the American Society for Bone Mineral Research (“ASBMR”) 
Conference in Houston, which included Dr. Jamal’s co-collaborators, Drs. Eastell and Dr. 
Cummings. Dr. Eastell, however, could not understand the results presented by Dr. Jamal, as one 
aspect was unexpected and not in keeping with the other results from a biological perspective. He 
asked Dr. Jamal to provide him with the data she relied on so that he could examine it. In response to 
his request, Dr. Jamal purported to send the data files that had been created by her Research 
Associate on the premise that this was the data that she relied on to conduct her statistical analysis.  
In fact, the WCH’s investigation revealed that the files Dr. Jamal sent were not what her Research 
Associate had prepared. Rather, Dr. Jamal sent the files that contained the manipulated data she 
relied on in her statistical analysis, which she created moments before sending them to Dr. Eastell. 
Had Dr. Jamal sent Dr. Eastell the files prepared by her Research Associate, Dr. Eastell would have 
immediately seen that the data did not support the results Dr. Jamal had circulated to collaborators 
and presented at the ASBMR meeting. 
      
Ultimately, Dr. Eastell conducted his own statistical analysis, relying on data directly from the 
source. In his email to Dr. Jamal and Dr. Cummings he indicated that his results did not support the 
study hypothesis as they showed no difference between treatment groups compared with the placebo 
controls, a significant departure from Dr. Jamal’s results.   
 
The Research Associate, concerned with the discrepancy between Dr. Eastell’s results and Dr. 
Jamal’s, requested that Dr. Jamal send her a copy of the data she had sent to Dr. Eastell so she could 
re-check her data entry. She was concerned she may have made mistakes in her data entry, and that 
this may have impacted Dr. Jamal’s analysis. Dr. Jamal purported to do this, but instead sent her 
Research Associate the data her Research Associate had prepared so that she would not see that Dr. 
Jamal had sent Dr. Eastell a different set of data. Had she actually provided her Research Associate 
with what she had provided to Dr. Eastell, her Research Associate may have detected that Dr. Jamal 
altered the data. The Research Associate reviewed the data and noted that she had made 16 
typographical data-entry errors (in a dataset containing over 1000 reported values). The Research 
Associate corrected these typographical errors and provided a corrected spreadsheet to Dr. Jamal the 
same day. These typographical errors would not have generated the statistical analysis originally 
prepared by Dr. Jamal and shared with her collaborators and colleagues. 
 
Dr. Jamal then purported to “re-enter” the data on her own.  She generated a new statistical analysis 
and sent her results to Dr. Eastell and Dr. Cummings without copying her Research Associate. In her 
email, she represented that she re-entered the data provided from the source (the University of 
Sheffield) and confirmed her re-analysis was in line with Dr. Eastell’s. She attached a word 
document with a statistical analysis and pointed to her Research Associate as the source of the 
discrepancy between her initial analysis and Dr. Eastell’s.  
 
Dr. Eastell continued to try to understand the difference between his analysis, which did not support 
the study hypothesis, and the one originally conducted by Dr. Jamal, which did support the study 
hypothesis. He examined the data from various sources including the original data derived from the 
serum and urine samples at the University of Sheffield and the data subsequently provided to him by 
Dr. Jamal. Subsequently, in his email to Dr. Cummings and Dr. Jamal he indicated that he was 
worried the changes could have been made deliberately as he could not think of another explanation. 
Dr. Jamal replied to Dr. Eastell indicating that she agreed with him and sought to deflect blame, 
advising her collaborators that the spread sheet she sent was based on her Research Associate’s data.  
 
On January 14, 2015, following Dr. Eastell’s revelation that deliberate changes had been made to the 
data, Dr. Jamal, Dr. Cummings and Dr. Eastell participated in a videoconference, focusing on Dr. 
Jamal’s concern that the Research Associate had changed the data and how Dr. Jamal should 
approach the matter with her Research Associate.  
      
On January 22, 2015, Dr. Jamal sent Dr. Cummings and Dr. Eastell a draft letter she had prepared to 
send to all those who had participated in the discussion about the NABT Study results at the ASBMR 
conference, wherein she acknowledged that the previous data that she had shared was incorrect, that 
the reanalysis demonstrated no relationship between bone turnover markers and nitrates, and that 
there had been systematic modifications to the data. In her email, Dr. Jamal advised Dr. Cummings 
and Dr. Eastell that she had spoken with her VP of Research about the concerns regarding the 
conduct of her Research Associate. This is untrue. Dr. Jamal mentioned nothing to the VP of 
Research. 
 
After concerns were raised about the NABT data in late 2014 and early 2015, Dr. Cummings and Dr. 
Eastell discussed the need to confirm the published JAMA results. It seemed unlikely that the JAMA 
results would differ so significantly from the NABT results. Given that Dr. Cummings, Dr. Jamal and 
Dr.  Eastell  had  sought  funding  for a  planning  grant  for  a  large  scale  clinical  trial  (the  NIH  NO 
Planning Grant) based on the JAMA results, Dr. Cummings wanted to confirm the JAMA analysis.  
Accordingly, he requested that Dr. Jamal provide the raw data. On January 20, 2015, Dr. Jamal wrote 
to Dr. Cummings and Dr. Eastell claiming she had some “bad news” regarding the data sources for 
the JAMA paper. She advised that none of original/raw data remained available - it had either been 
lost or destroyed. On January 27, 2015, Dr. Jamal emailed Dr. Cummings advising that she, in fact, 
did locate some raw data for the JAMA Study. She attempted to discourage any further investigation 
into the JAMA data. 
 
University of Toronto Inquiry 
 
On February 25, 2015, the Scientific Director at the institution affiliated with Dr. Cummings, lodged 
a complaint against Dr. Jamal with the Research Oversight and Compliance Department of the 
University of Toronto, requesting an investigation into whether the data in the NABT Study had been 
intentionally manipulated and if so, by whom, and whether the raw data for the JAMA Study exists.  
The University of Toronto conducted a preliminary inquiry.    
      
Throughout the University of Toronto Inquiry, Dr. Jamal falsely maintained she played no role in the 
manipulation and fabrication of the study data and continued to deflect blame to her Research 
Associate seeking to avoid detection. In her submission to the University of Toronto Inquiry, Dr. 
Jamal purported to include the data sets prepared by her Research Associate. The files she provided 
to the University of Toronto Inquiry were, in fact, the files Dr. Jamal created shortly before she sent 
them to Dr. Eastell (and as subsequently determined, reflected the data she had manipulated). Dr. 
Jamal made this statement to deliberately mislead the Inquiry and to falsely and deliberately 
implicate her Research Associate. Dr. Jamal asserted falsely during the University of Toronto Inquiry 
that she was shocked and distraught to learn about the data manipulation, wished that she had 
detected the error at an earlier stage, and that she had no intention to deceive anyone. She also falsely 
asserted that the complaint against her was motivated by Dr. Cummings’ “deep personal interest” in 
ultimately proving nitrates can be used to prevent fractures. 
      
Women’s College Hospital (“WCH”) Investigation  
 
Following receipt of the University of Toronto Inquiry report, WCH assumed the sole jurisdiction for 
the investigation.  On June 1, 2015, an Investigative Committee (the “IC”) was appointed with a 
mandate to investigate the allegations of research misconduct alleged in the complaint and to expand 
the investigation if the evidence disclosed new related instances of possible misconduct.  
      
After conducting its extensive investigation, in a report dated October 8, 2015, the IC concluded that 
she engaged in numerous acts of research misconduct, including that Dr. Jamal fabricated study data 
in each of the NABT, Scerlostin and JAMA studies to support the study hypothesis. Dr. Jamal 
acknowledges the extensive steps the IC was required to take to uncover her data falsification. As 
part of the IC’s investigation, a forensic expert was retained to examine various computer hard-
drives, email communication, data sets and documents, among other things, passed between 
researchers and collaborators in the JAMA Study, the Sclerostin Study and the NABT Study.  
 
Dr. Jamal Engaged in Professional Misconduct: NABT Study 
 
Following the extensive investigation of the IC, with respect to the NABT Study, it was determined, 
and Dr. Jamal admits, that: 
      
- Dr. Jamal manipulated study data in August 2014 with the intention of supporting the underlying 
  hypothesis that nitrates reduced bone loss and prevent osteoporotic fracture;  
- Dr. Jamal presented these falsified results to her collaborators and to a small audience at the 
  ASBMR conference;  
- Contrary to the repeated assertions made by Dr. Jamal prior to and during the investigation, her 
  Research Associate had no role in the falsification of the study data. These allegations by Dr. 
  Jamal were wholly unjustified and completely inappropriate; and,  
- Dr. Jamal engaged in numerous acts to avoid detection and falsely implicate her Research 
  Associate once Dr. Eastell raised concerns that the data had been systematically modified, 
  including ensuring her Research Associate was not copied on various emails, sending falsified 
  data sets to Dr. Eastell and representing those were the data sets prepared by her Research 
  Associate, and misrepresenting to her Research Associate what she had sent Dr. Eastell. Dr. Jamal 
  continued to do the same throughout the University of Toronto Inquiry.   
 
Dr. Jamal Engaged in Professional Misconduct: Sclerostin Study 
 
The IC also closely examined the Sclerostin Study which had been initiated in or around 2011 
following the JAMA Study. The hypothesis of the Sclerostin Study was that active treatment subjects 
receiving nitroglycerin would experience a decrease in serum sclerostin and a corresponding increase 
in bone mass.  
      
In December 2011, Dr. Jamal provided her collaborators with data in a form ready for statistical 
analysis, which she purported was the raw data for the Sclersotin Study. However, as revealed by the 
IC investigation, unbeknownst to her collaborators, the data contained in these files had been 
manipulated by Dr. Jamal in a systematic fashion to support the study hypothesis.  
      
In early 2012, Dr. Jamal’s colleagues noted that Dr. Jamal appeared to have relied on a different set 
of data than one of their collaborators who had run his own statistical analysis. Dr. Jamal initially 
identified the correct data, but then, on more than one occasion, specifically directed her colleague to 
rely on the data she had falsified, claiming it was the correct data. The statistical analysis prepared by 
her colleague based on the falsified data demonstrated significant reduction of sclerostin in the 
treatment group. Ultimately, Dr. Jamal’s colleagues prepared a manuscript based on this analysis, 
stating “our results suggest that nitroglycerin treatment substantially increases bone mass in 
postmenopausal women by decreasing sclerostin production”.  This conclusion was based on Dr. 
Jamal’s manipulated data. Dr. Jamal reviewed and approved the paper and is identified as an author.  
The manuscript was submitted for review but was rejected. It was not resubmitted.  
 
With respect to the Sclerostin Study, the IC determined, and Dr. Jamal admits: 
 
 -  Dr. Jamal manipulated study data with the intention of supporting the underlying hypothesis that 
    active treatment subjects would see a decrease in serum sclerostin; and 
 -  Dr. Jamal directed her colleague to rely on the altered data, representing that it was the accurate 
    data when discrepancies arose in the analysis. 
 
Dr. Jamal Engaged in Professional Misconduct: JAMA Study 
 
Intentional manipulation of Study Data 
 
The JAMA study commenced in November 2005 and was completed in March 2010. It involved 
obtaining three different measurements from study subjects: Bone Mineral Density (“BMD”) 
involving scans carried out on study subjects; Peripheral quantitative computed tomography 
(“pQCT”) involving scans carried out on study subjects; and BSAP and NTx measured using 
subjects’ serum and urine samples. Dr. Jamal had full access to all of the data in the study and took 
responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.  
 
The IC’s investigation revealed that Dr. Jamal: 
 -  Systematically altered the BMD data intentionally manipulating it to increase the apparent 
    effectiveness of the treatment, in support of the study hypothesis; 
 -  Systematically altered the pQCT data intentionally manipulating it to increase the apparent 
    effectiveness of the treatment, in support of the study hypothesis; and,   
 -  Systematically altered BSAP and NTx data by reducing the placebo values and increasing the 
    active treatment group data by constant amounts, in support of the study hypothesis. 
     
Dr. Jamal’s data manipulation remained undetected until 2015 when concern arose in the NABT 
Study and her collaborators became frustrated with her failure to deliver the raw data for the JAMA 
Study, giving rise to the complaint and ultimately the IC’s investigation.  
 
Deceiving Colleagues during IC Investigation  
 
When Dr. Cummings and Dr. Eastell discussed the need to confirm the published JAMA results 
given the NABT results and asked Dr. Jamal to provide the raw data for the JAMA Study, Dr. Jamal 
sent to Dr. Cummings what she purported was the “raw data” for one of the study measurements.  
However, the data she provided was data that she had systematically modified. During the IC’s 
investigation, Dr. Jamal continued to falsely maintain that the data she had sent to Dr. Cummings in 
April 2015 was the actual raw data for the particular measurement.  
 
The IC determined that some of the raw data for the JAMA study had been available to Dr. Jamal 
such that she could have provided this information to her collaborators as requested. Instead, Dr. 
Jamal provided altered patient records attempting to pass them off as “raw data” in her possession, 
and knowingly provided inaccurate data to her collaborators. 
 
Tampering with Patient Records in an Attempt to Avoid Detection  
 
The IC investigation revealed that active treatment subjects’ BMD scans had been replaced with 
scans from other patients, most of whom were not participants in the JAMA Study. Dr. Jamal took 
BMD scans (patient records) from various patients who had no connection to the study, redacted their 
names and other information, including scan dates, hand wrote a study subject ID on the patient 
record, and attempted to pass off the scans as the “raw data” that supported the published study 
analysis. To do this, Dr. Jamal accessed confidential patient records for an improper purpose, without 
consent or legal authority to do so, in violation of patient confidentiality and privacy. Dr. Jamal had 
provided photocopies of these doctored BMD scans to Dr. Cummings under the pretense of providing 
him the raw data for the JAMA Study.  
 
The IC investigation also revealed that Dr. Jamal manually altered pQCT records (patient records), 
by superimposing false data onto the actual patient record. The alteration was deliberate and designed 
to give the appearance that the hard copy pQCT scans Dr. Jamal was providing to the IC was “raw 
data” that matched the published JAMA results. Dr. Jamal held out these doctored records to the IC 
as bona fide patient records containing what purported to be the “raw data” that supported the 
published study analysis. 
 
Dr. Jamal’s actions with original patient records (BMD scans and pQCT records) amount to a misuse 
and misappropriation of confidential patient information, in violation of patient confidentiality and 
privacy.  
 
Dr. Jamal’s misconduct during investigation  

Dr. Jamal also engaged in additional misconduct during the IC’s investigation by taking steps to 
make relevant evidence unavailable to the IC: 
 
 -  When advised that a forensic investigation was going to be conducted on some or all of her 
    computers, she was untruthful regarding the whereabouts of her old computer she used up until 
    January 2014, initially stating she was unaware of its whereabouts and then later acknowledging 
    accessing it. Video footage and witness accounts established that Dr. Jamal removed a computer 
    from the premises during the investigation and it could not be located. In addition Dr. Jamal 
    removed her current computer from her office and brought it to her home. While she falsely 
    claimed she did not alter any data on her current computer, forensic analysis established that she 
    did, in fact, delete relevant files on May 23, 2015, thereby destroying evidence and obstructing 
    the investigation. 
 -  Dr. Jamal entered Canadian Blood Services where raw blood and urine samples from the JAMA 
    Study were stored. She manipulated freezer temperatures, affecting the samples that had been 
    maintained, in order to cover up her misconduct.  
     
Some Consequences of Dr. Jamal’s Misconduct 

As early as 2010, Dr. Jamal falsified results leading to the JAMA publication to support a clinical 
hypothesis, and further studies intended to bolster these findings (Sclerostin and NABT).  As part of 
the JAMA Study, falsified results were communicated to study participants.  In some cases, results 
were copied to the study participant’s family doctor; in other cases, study participants were told to 
take the results to their family doctor. None of the participants had osteoporosis. The consent forms 
executed by patients advised that if the study was successful, further research would be required 
before nitroglycerin treatment would be available for use.    
      
Knowing that she had falsified the JAMA results to support her hypothesis regarding nitroglycerin 
treatment, Dr. Jamal then continued to collaborate with others, to obtain funding, including from NIH 
and CIHR, to conduct further research (for example, the Sclersotin Study and NABT Study), 
including research on human subjects, without any evidentiary foundation.  
      
There are known risks associated with nitrate treatment, including headache, nausea and postural 
hypotension. In the JAMA Study, for example, 104 of 157 women who dropped out of the one-week 
run-in phase reported headaches and nausea. Dr. Jamal placed patients in a subsequent clinical study 
(the NABT Study), exposed these patients at a minimum to the risk of headaches, and did so with 
knowledge that there was no basis to support any potential benefit.   
      
Following the IC Investigation, WCH notified each participant in the JAMA Study that they may 
have in fact received incorrect results. Participants were asked to advise their family physicians, who 
could in turn consider this information in the ongoing monitoring of the individual’s bone health.  
WCH has stated that “there is no evidence of negative outcomes for any of these research 
participants.” 
      
In December 2015, the Journal of the American Medical Association retracted the JAMA Study.  
 
On May 4, 2016, the President of CIHR declared Dr. Jamal permanently ineligible to hold, 
participate in, or apply for CIHR funding or funding from the other two federal research agencies 
(NSERC or SSHRC) or any Tri-Agency programs; and permanently ineligible to participate in 
Agency review processes.  She is also required to reimburse CIHR for the funds spent on the study.  
 
Disposition 
 
On March 6, 2018, the Discipline Committee ordered and directed that: 
 
 -  the Registrar revoke Dr. Jamal’s certificate of registration effective immediately.  
 -  Dr. Jamal appear before the panel to be reprimanded. 
 -  Dr. Jamal pay costs to the College in the amount of $5,500.00 within 30 days of the date of this 
    Order.

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Hearing Date(s): March 6, 2018