Given that Sermo paying clients (ie. pharma companies, investment firms, etc.) can post questions (and have their MD employeess or their KOLs answer them), it seems like a key opportunity for off-label promotion even prior to the Pfizer arrangement.

From their FAQ: “There’s obviously lots of utility for Sermo in being a place where physicians can share info about “off-label” uses of drugs…”
Response: “Posting information to Sermo on off-label uses does not necessarily expose a posting physician to liability. The Sermo forum is provided to allow the free exchange of scientific information. However, physicians posting to the Sermo forum should disclose any bias or financial conflicts of interest to allow physicians utilizing the information to be allowed to make fully informed medical decisions as to any proposed “off-label” use of medication. The full disclosure of all biases or conflicts will assure that doctors proscribing “off-label” treatments are exercising their independent informed medical judgment.”

Clearly this deal with Pfizer was already in the works - despite effusive words to the contrary. I won’t be using Sermo again, and will be much more skeptical of an AMA endorsement in future. I feel like I’ve just been had in an elaborate internet bait and switch.

Already this scenario is in place with patient groups who chat through listservs. The patients may discuss clinical trial results in highly active/competive clinical research areas, or the group itself my collect medical information or anecdotal clinical trial results from its members. There are interesting possibilities regarding how the patient groups may use or where they might distribute such information. No wonder companies have a lot of interests in these groups, including subsidizing them with “educational grant” money.