Misleading graphs form part of the attempt by Procter and Gamble Pharmaceuticals (P&G) to interfere with scientific evidence about their osteoporosis drug Actonel (backstory here, here and here). Several similar graphs (with supposedly supportive statistics) appeared in reports prepared by P&G based on data generated in Sheffield. They also appeared in a P&G funded publication (Eastell et al. 2003 J.Bone.Miner.Res. 18:1051-6), underpinned meeting abstracts, and two draft ghostwritten P&G publications with myself as intended first author -- all while P&G refused authors access to randomization codes and other underlying raw data.
Here is an example (from Eastell et al (2003) J. Bone. Miner. Res. 18:1051-6).
Much more of this later. However I was reminded of some correspondence in Science 30 years ago in response to a graph and statistics in a paper by Roubik (Science 1978: 201;1030).
Which prompted Robert Hazen to respond (Science 1978 202:823):