Certainly, institutions showing activity in "fighting" fraud were not greately pleased by my findings.

Back in spring 95, I informed the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) about this my finding with a promise of opportunity to find several dozens more cases every year. An acknowledgement of receipt demonstrated total "disregard" of this promise, i.e. my letter was interpreted as a standard wistleblow. After two years (?!) of dead silence I received a final conclusion of ORI on this case. It was stated that:
1. Sctachard plot in the article did not represent actual experimental data, so a recommendation was issued to submit to editor of J.Biol.Chemistry a retraction of the corresponding figure and clarification of the data derived from it.
2. Yet, it was concluded that it is not possible to determine "whether the discreapancies identified in the published data were the result of intentional misconduct, computational error, omission of data, coincidence, sloppiness or ignorance" just because the authors did not ptovide the inquiry panel with the primary data.

In March 97 I stumbled upon the article with this sort of Scatchard plot in the Nature journal. The following correspondence with its editors resulted in a direct statement from them that my finding does not prove anything (see Nature's editors conceal fraud). It seems to be a too insolent behaviour even for this tabloid. Yet, I incline to think that it may be caused by my other submission to this journal several years ago.