I don't get it. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that

A prominent Massachusetts anesthesiologist allegedly fabricated 21 medical studies that claimed to show benefits from painkillers like Vioxx and Celebrex, according to the hospital where he worked.

This fabrication is not surprising in light of the fact that Vioxx has now been shown to be of highly questionable effectiveness and based on real world use that has arguably caused tens of thousands of deaths--people who had heart attacks because they used Vioxx when they could have, instead, continued to use the extremely safe over-the-counter drug Naproxen. But then comes the good part, a claim by Dr. Rueben's attorney:

"Dr. Reuben deeply regrets that this happened," said the doctor's attorney, Ingrid Martin. "Dr. Reuben cooperated fully with the peer review committee. There were extenuating circumstances that the committee fairly and justly considered." She declined to explain the extenuating circumstances.

There you have it. There were "extenuating circumstances" for faking data in 21 medical studies. I wonder what those "extenuating circumstances" were? The desire to get rich by conniving with a dirty drug company (see the article for the evidence)? Our did those "extenuating circumstances" include the lack of any sense of professional responsibility? Or did those "extenuating circumstances" include sadistic impulses to endanger the lives of thousands of people?