Comments on: Peter Rost Vs. Pfizer: The Evidence Comes In

By: Bob Freeman

Bob Freeman — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:03:32 +0000

Unclear: good question–since a physician’s diagnosis is not linked to the prescription, It’s difficult to know whether the prescribing is off-label unless the dose prescribed is outside the bounds of approved labeling. It is possible (retrospectively) to link pharmacy claims data with physicians’ records. A number of managed care organizations that provide services to Medicaid as well as private-sector patients have “flags” for use that needs to be checked.

By: unclear

unclear — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:35:18 +0000

How does a Medicaid claim prove that the drug was promoted improperly? Drugs are precribed and administered for off-label use all the time, at the perogative of the physician.
Though I can see how evidence of the promotional activity, along with a pattern of higher than usual off-label prescription claims in a related geographic area could establish a case, when it comes to calculating a fine, will it be assumed that each and every off-label use was a result of unallowed marketing activity?

By: doris day

doris day — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:53:32 +0000

Are you aware that Peter Rost is not telling you the truth. He blackmailed Wyeth into paying him “go away’ money. He asked our Pfizer VP of Marketing to give him a job, when we bought Pharmacia, which was a stupid company. He told us that he would unload his shit on us if we did not give him an office. He then sat in that office, this freeloader and never did anything. Ask him. Then he cheated at Huffington Post, where Arriana Huffington fired him for writing blogs pretending to be other people.
Finally, did he tell you that he is not a Doctor. Ask him for his MD License Number. Verify yourself, before you bring yourself down by associating with this scumbag. Honest Abe

By: BLD

BLD — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:02:05 +0000

Most individuals who ‘blow the whistle” on Big Pharma never collect a penny for their actions. Many simply become frustrated with dealing with all the commercial crooks and try to do what is right inside a company and report it through “anonymous” means. For these unfortunate souls, the “anonymity” disappears, they are labeled disloyal employees, retaliated against and terminated from their jobs. All because they cared enough about the public to raise questions about some of their company’s shady activities. These people are “black-balled” by Big Pharma and have a lot of trouble finding an equivalent job. Once the word is out in the Big Pharma mafia, no other company will touch you because you could be a “spy” or a “traitor.” Many take their issues forward, but end up buried in government bureaucracy. It could take years and years for things to be resolved as the Big Pharma lawyers try to tear you apart. I believe that an underlying commitment to ethics and morals as well as a conscience and a knowledge of right from wrong drive these people. Any money that they ever end up with is not worth the living hell they have to go through because they care enough about their fellow human beings to stand up and question unethical actions.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:40:34 +0000

I do not know any of the whistleblowers revered by some on here, not do I know their motivations. But if I might be just a teeny bit cynical, annointing them as heroes because of their desire to ‘bring justice to greedy corporations’ is a bit rich. Of course what they do with the money is their business, and it may be used for good or otherwise, but when successful, there is rather a lot to dispose of. Let’s not get carried away by assuming altruism over opportunism.

By: Doc

Doc — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:10:40 +0000

Rost is like every other whistleblower - a hero. These people take risks that most would not dare to, in order to bring justice to greedy corporations. We all pay through our taxes, when the government overpays. I work in big pharma, these corporations are greedy, do they help people? Yes. Are they greedy? Yes. I hope Rost gets a hundred million dollars from Pfizer.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:35:07 +0000

BP Watch,

Thank you for the compliment,

Dan

By: BP Watch

BP Watch — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:05:30 +0000

I completely agree with Dan. In order for the actions of Big Pharma to be appropriately controlled by the existing rules, regulations and laws, the American public needs to have more people like Peter Rost. He is willing to stand up for what is right rather than be bullied into submission by Big Pharma. It takes a tremendous amount of courage that I wish more people had.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:21:48 +0000

Some thoughts about corporate whistleblowers:

1. Most, I believe, do not initiate such a case for a chunk of any settlement they may receive if they are successful in having thier case intervened by the government. Peter Rost, for example, is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, I understand, yet still chose to blow the whistle, although obviously his true motivations for filing his case can only be based on what Dr. Rost has stated frequently to others.

2. Most whistleblowers blow the whistle, I believe, because they have had enough after learning a great deal about the wrongdoing of a corporation. Most, I believe, do not blow the whistle because of any grudge they have against any particular corporation, or because of emotional instability of some nature. They possibly examined situations more deeply than others, which I believe is rare in itself.

3. I speculate that blowing the whistle against such powerful forces as large coporations and the government is a very difficult process to implement. Most people, I believe, choose to be deliberately ignorant regarding what is usually significant wrongdoing that has occured and continues to occur with corporations, for example, which may be why more whistleblowers do not exist. Why? Because ignorance is bliss, especially if one is receiving a rather large paycheck from a corporation that is conducting what may be illegal wrongdoing. It’s my understanding that a whistleblower risks quite a bit, both tangible and intangible or intrinsically, by implementing such a case.

4. It is also my understanding that the true etiology of one who chooses to blow the whistle is largely unknown. Yet I consider whistleblowers overall to have a great deal of courage and drive to do the right thing by insisting that others do the same, if there is such a strong belief by such people that some corporations are conducting activities that are damaging or corrupting others.

So I applaud Dr. Rost and those few others who have chosen to blow the whistle, pharmaceutical or any other industry, because it is my belief that thier actions are mostly for righteous and valid reasons, instead of all of the negative reasons they are accused of by others because of thier disclosures.

By: Ed Silverman

Ed Silverman — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:31:31 +0000

Hi Ol’ Cranky,

I’m afraid I don’t have the answer to your first question. As to the second question, perhaps filing a FOIA request to the appropriate state agency would be useful and, from there, cultivating helpful individuals.

ed at Pharmalot