Schering-Plough And Another AHA Connection
In times of crisis, companies often turn to communications specialists to craft messages, deflect damage and hone images. And that’s what Schering-Plough is doing to cope with the Vytorin controversy, which has ravaged its stock price, prompted Congressional scrutiny, caused massive layoffs and, in general, sullied its corporate reputation. Among those the drugmaker has recently asked for help is Gil Bashe, who works at Makovsky & Co., a well-known public relations firm based in New York.
Bashe, however, also serves as a board member on the New York chapter of the American Heart Association, as does Brent Saunders, a compliance expert who runs Schering-Plough’s consumer healthcare business. You may recall that there is yet another connection between the drugmaker and the non-profit organization. The Merck/Schering-Plough joint venture that markets Vytorin also makes nearly $2 million in annual contributions to the AHA, including $350,000 to sponsor a cholesterol page on the AHA web site.
This became known after the AHA quickly issued a statement last January following the release of the controversial Vytorin study results; the AHA declared the cholesterol med isn’t ‘unsafe’ and that patients and docs shouldn’t panic. The disclosure prompted Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, to include the AHA in his Vytorin probe over concerns that drugmakers give money to non-profits in hopes of garnering favors that, ultimately, may increase drug sales.
Given the circumstances, we wondered whether Schering-Plough is doing itself any favors by paying an AHA chapter board member to offer assistance with its Vytorin crisis. One ethics expert says the arrangement is worth avoiding. “This could obviously undercut some of the credibility needed to work their way out of this crisis,” says Art Caplan, who heads the BioEthics Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
“Given the problems surrounding the drug and the previously known connections to the AHA, ethically, it may be smart not to bridge the two. This is a situation where you want some distance. The arrangement may be a little more tolerable when you’re at the local chapter level than the national, but I still think it’s prudent to have some distance, given the current controversy,” he continues. “This individual may be doing AHA work for altruistic purposes. And that’s fine. But there’s a large pool of advisers out there and it may be advisable to find someone who has no connection.”
We asked the AHA for a comment and, through a spokeswoman, the AHA maintains that Bashe isn’t involved in forming national or regional policies, and hasn’t been “involved in setting any AHA scientific statements or positions,” including those concerning Vytorin. And since his AHA role focuses solely on assisting with local fundraising and programs, “he would not be excluded from participating in this kind of role within the association,” even as he consults for Schering-Plough.
We should point out that there is nothing to suggest that Bashe, who serves on the AHA New York board on a voluntary basis, has done anything inappropriate. He readily acknowledges his work for Schering-Plough, but maintains his role is minimal. He also says his relationship with the drugmaker began before an AHA gala in New York last month, where he spoke with Saunders, although he wasn’t specific. A Schering-Plough spokeswoman says Bashe does work on “an ad-hoc basis” on Vytorin and has done so since before the gala, although she couldn’t say how long.
“I have answered questions about Vytorin, but it’s not an involved relationship. It’s a minute relationship. It’s not a significant involvement. I’m not in the trenches with them. And I wasn’t involved in that statement (the AHA statement about Vytorin),” Bashe tells us. “I never engaged on that issue or commented on that statement. I’ve had no contact with the AHA on the matter. And I’ve never asked the AHA to do anything on behalf of any client…My volunteer work is important to me. And I view these as separate matters.”
A disinterested observer
“He readily acknowledges his work for Schering-Plough, but maintains his role is minimal. He also says his relationship with the drugmaker began before an AHA gala in New York last month, where he spoke with Saunders, although he wasn’t specific. A Schering-Plough spokeswoman says Bashe does work on “an ad-hoc basis” on Vytorin and has done so since before the gala, although she couldn’t say how long.”
From the link: http://www.makovsky.com/health/leadership.html
“Gil Bashe …… served as CEO of CommonHealth”
Indeed he did, back in the nineties, where he was intimately involved in servicing Schering’s Claritin business (Commonhealth were the ad agency for Claritin). He’s been known to them for years.
Ed Silverman
Hi Disinterested,
Yes, I’m aware Bashe did work for SGP while at his previous firms. I’m referring specifically to the recent Vytorin controversy.
Hope that clears things up,
ed
David Matthew
Bashe and Saunders talked at the incredible fancy AHA NY gala. Is that the one held yearly that Schering-Plough is heavily behind and none other than Fred attends? What about Merck Schering-Plough holding a seat on the AHA Pharma Council, which can cost a few hundred thousand dollars alone per year? It appears that Brent S. may not be the “compliance expert” he’s supposed to be, given all the recent trouble that Schering-Plough finds itself in. I think he’s one of the executives who sold stock in mid 2007 He did such a great job that he’s now running Consumer Health? They announced the person that replaced him is from Lilly, which is in its’ own hot water with Zyprexa.
If you would to like to find some more controversy of this nature, you may want to look into Schering-Plough’s dealings with the ACC. Perhaps even follow that up with how they interface with Harvard and Duke.
Paul
If you knew how these chapters works you would realize that this is not as connected as you make it seem.
The regional/local chapters of all these societies have very little to do with the broad national societies, especially when it comes to scientific matters. The local groups are more about local patient support, general awareness, etc. The national society, especially when it comes to the annual scientific meeting and the national boards, do work that is quite different.
Still, there are possible negative perceptions, but then such affiliations are all over the place. Like members of the aggressively anti-industry Prescription Project being on the board of JAMA and having truly infiltrated its agenda.
Tony Williams
It’s too bad that a company like Schering-Plough is getting attacked for supporting important public health causes like the AHA.
Although the insinuations in Ed’s piece suggest there might be something improper — what is it?
Neither Bashe nor Saunders are employees or paid officials of the AHA. They are volunteer board members on a regional fundraising board for the AHA, who are helping the AHA raise the money it needs to do important work to combat heart disease — along with cancer one of the biggest killers we face.
There is zero conflict of interest that I can see here, but lots of good.
One of the great things about America is the ethic of voluneerism and of philanthropy by private institutions for the public good.
Let’s not tear down these good things just to get a fast headline or to attack a company that gives millions of dollars each year to good causes including the AHA.
Concerned Volunteer
I agree with Tony.
I know that your blog is meant to stir reactions from people, but charities (and those that help them) shouldn’t get hurt in the process.
Many corporate executives from across all sectors serve as volunteers on boards of charitable organizations. Charities rely on their business acumen so they can serve their constituents most effectively.
Let’s not make volunteer board service another case of “no good deed goes unpunished.” There’s so much bad in the world, we should celebrate the good stuff.
Volunteers like Saunders and Bashe — and the companies that support them in their volunteer service — should be thanked for their efforts to move the mission of AHA forward, not criticized.
Doug Bremner
The ink wasn’t dry on the papers writing about the Vytorin debacle before the faxes came sliding out from the AHA telling everyone that they shouldn’t stop taking their Vytorin. I know, I saw it myself. And it didnt take long for people to figure out that the AHA gets about a million dollars per year from pharma. That results in them taking the position that healthy people should be screened for high cholesterol, when there isnt any evidence that lowering cholesterol per se will necessarily prevent heart attacks. The large trials like WOSCOPS etc were done in patients with multiple risk factors, but that doesnt stop the promotion of statins for people with no risk factor other than slightly elevated cholesterol. US guidelines would put twice as many people (25% of the population) on statins as any other country. For example we would put twice as many on statins as NZ put rates of heart attack are no different, suggesting that this increased treatment is not helping. Or to take another example, promotion of screening for osteopenia and osteoporosis ‘prevention’ when the treatment can cause more harm than good. It is only common sense that someone working for a group that promotes screening or advocates for a particular disorder is not going to want to bite the hand that feeds it, ie. pharma. As for Bashe not ‘being in the trenches’ with S-P, does that mean he is running around the bullet strewn battlefield? I somehow get an image of an American volunteer running around the battlefield in the Spanish Franco war…
Laurie
“Volunteers like Saunders and Bashe — and the companies that support them in their volunteer service — should be thanked for their efforts to move the mission of AHA forward, not criticized.”
But in the same breath these two men should have declined the request to get involved with a situation that would leave them open to speculation.
Ed Silverman
Dear Tony, Paul and Concerned,
With all due respect, the point is what Schering-Plough chose to do - and in this case, it was to hire someone with a link to an organization that has also been caught up in the Vytorin controversy.
This is no reflection on the AHA’s charitable work or the contribution made by Bashe to the AHA. The work they do was not criticized, if you read my post carefully.
As Caplan noted, Schering-Plough can find many communications specialists without further raising questions about its relationship to the AHA.
Hope this helps,
ed
Laurie
“As Caplan noted, Schering-Plough can find many communications specialists without further raising questions about its relationship to the AHA.”
Exactly! The AHA did themselves no favors coming out to minimize the vytorin situation, and then compounded it by choosing consultants who were involved with the manufacturer of the questionable drug.
It doesn’t mean that there is confirmed wrongdoing, but it does make the questions about the relationship relevant.
MrMedia
I’m really glad the piece took pains to point out that there is not one whiff of impropriety surrounding Gil Bashe’s work. He’s a mentor and former colleague, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that his integrity and personal code of ethics when it comes to potential conflicts are unassailable. In addition to always counseling credibility and transparency to his clients, the amount of pro-bono work he does for good causes (like the AHA) is amazing, and incredibly in this day and age, actually motivated by the archaic belief that successful people who care about an important issue should get involved to help others. (What a concept!)
Concerned Community Volunteer
With all due respect Ed….
You either had a bad news day or wanted to unfairly try to discredit a great organization and two volunteer leaders. I noticed under your biography that there is not mention of volunteerism. Maybe you should follow the example of Bashe and Saunders and get involved in something as worthwhile as the AHA. Very unfair as has been suggested time and again today. You should apologize to all involved!
Laurie
Wow…what a stretch,CCV! Vytorin and SP are under investigation by Congress. The AHA minimized the clinical study that made SP millions of dollars. The AHA chose to consult with an employee of SP who is also part of their organization.
Sorry, this has nothing to do with volunteerism. This is about the “appearance” of impropriety. The AHA could have chosen any number of experts to use, yet they chose one who is involved in their organization.
This gentleman may have done nothing wrong, but why he would chose to get involved, knowing full well that their was a Congressional investigation going on is beyond me.
Apologize….for what? For being a reporter reporting on a hot topic?
Concerned Community Volunteer
Laurie…
You better start again. There is NOTHING factual about AHA as presented by Ed in your response. Welcome to the world of the misinformed!
Ed Silverman
Dear Concerned,
The issue here is the judgement of Schering-Plough’s executives and communications team in hiring an individual to ties with an organization that is being scrutinized as part of the Vytorin controversy. I believe Caplan spelled out why this is an issue. The issue is not the work done by the AHA or the contributions made by its volunteer board members. Please go back and read my post.
As to your contention that I don’t volunteer my time, you’re incorrect. I simply don’t list my activities because it’s not pertinent to my work. In any event, that is not the issue here.
Regards
ed
Concerned Community Volunteer
Who knows Ed..maybe the volunteer work of Bashe & Saunders may help save your life some day! You did the enitre volunteer sector a disfavor today.
Shame!
Laurie
“The issue here is the judgement of Schering-Plough’s executives and communications team in hiring an individual to ties with an organization that is being scrutinized as part of the Vytorin controversy.”
Thanks Ed….this is exactly what I was trying to say. The AHA does amazing work and I don’t think that anyone questions that. But in this situation this persons decision was probably not in the best interest of the AHA.
No one has said he did anything wrong….maybe just didn’t see the potential for conflict with his decision, which in this case isn’t going to benefit either party.
Ed Silverman
Dear CCV,
With all due respect, you seem determined to miss the point, which I’ve reiterated twice now. But I’ll do so again - the issue is the judgement, or lack of judgement, exercised by Schering-Plough’s management, given the scrutiny focused on its previously reported connection to the AHA.
My post did not dismiss or denigrate the work done by the AHA, its voluntary board members or any of its volunteers. Those are two separate notions. Again, please re-read the post, particularly the comment from Art Caplan concerning Schering-Plough.
I appreciate and share your concern for volunteerism, and the ability of organizations to attract good people who can do important work. This post was not about that. This post was about Schering-Plough executives and their approach to managing a crisis situation.
Regards
ed
HorusCat
Can we all please acknowledge that there is nothing to suggest Vytorin is UNSAFE, only that it MAY be an unnecessarily expensive way to lower your cholesterol?
Zetia and Zocor are safe. Vytorin is safe. The data from ENHANCE are not encouraging, but neither are they definitive. I’m not even sure I think this Congressional investigation is moral–the makers of the drug were not making mortality claims before the trial came out. They were saying it lowers cholesterol better–which it does. The prevailing assumption was that lower is better.
And to play devil’s advocate, since when do they have a responsibility to come out and say, “Hey, we don’t think our drug is better than the others?” Certainly, the study would suggest it is no better, but no worse. Of course, they could see the writing on the wall: these days, if you don’t have an efficacy advantage, you lose to the generics. Since when is a company required to cause itself commercial harm? (Now the issue of the insider-type trading is another matter.)
Anyway, just thought I’d stir the pot a little…and NO I don’t work for Schering-Plough, do not sell CV meds (used to) and wouldn’t take Vytorin because Lipitor 10mg is all I need.
Myra
Let me start by saying with pride, that I have been a Schering-Plough employee for over 13 years. More importantly, I am also a survivor of two open heart surgeries and a life-long AHA advocate and volunteer.
I object the inference that the relationship between Schering-Plough and AHA is some how improper. What can be more natural than for a pharmaceutical company that manufactures cardiac medications that improve and save the lives of cardiac patients to partner with a worthy organization like the AHA? This partnership between Schering-Plough and the AHA has a long and full history and one that should be recognized and not criticized.
Laurie
I think the recent pharmaceutical revelations on some questionable practices has made us all a little leary of all of the pharmaceuticals integrity. As controversy goes, this one is probably at the bottom of that scale.
At least this drug isn’t killing anyone.My husband has been on Vytorin(paid for by his prescription plan) with the understanding that it was “better” than Zocor alone. So this one is more about expense than harm(though making the liver process another drug that had no positive effect is troublesome to me).
In this day and age the pharmaceutical companies have to be extremely careful of their relationships, since even the hint of conflict is going to be highlighted, due to the recent situations.
I don’t believe that anyone has accused anyone of wrongdoing in this situation. But we are all VERY sensitive to conflict.
Dr T
Let’s talk about the ethics of a newspaper ‘reporter’ who simultaneously sponsors a scurrilous anti-pharma website.
Yes, Mr Ed Silverman.
Isn’t it ‘interesting’ that The Star Ledger employees you as it’s reporter on the pharmaceutical beat from which I assume the average reader expects to receive objective balanced reporting of stories, and yet when you put on your cloak of avenger of the evil pharmaceutical empire you are anything but objective.
The New York Times ombudsman/op-ed editor ran a story 2 weeks ago musing on the high risk of merging op-ed with reporting. The Wall Street Journal has written frequently about the separation of it’s editorial page from it’s news pages. The Star Ledger is not in this class, but where do they weigh in? Might it not be ‘interesting’ to get some professor of journalism to opine here (as you so conveniently go to Arthur Caplan to get medical ethics comments…)
This piece on AHA/S-P is one more example of much ado about nothing. But Pharmalot likes to recirculate every accusation from Peter Rost and Cafe Pharma to build the chorus of accusations about Big Pharma. This is the new world of the blogosphere, but is it really appropriate for this to be hosted and perpatuated by someone who during the day goes by the cover of ‘reporter’? Presumaby you couldn’t
get your editor to publish this as a story - because there is no story, but you can post it as a musing on your website…very interesting.
HorusCat
Dr. T,
I am about as pro-pharma as one can get (ask my many detractors on the site!!), but I think Pharmalot serves a useful purpose. I have “spoken” with Ed a bit and I think he is more balanced than you give him credit for. I do occasionally find an anti-pharma balance in his writing, but do not think that necessarily means his reportage in his real job will be affected. After all, I am making the claim that a physician can multi-task with various interest groups (patients, other docs, pharma). This site gets me thinking and allows me to air my views–which are the minority voice, of course!
I think this whole ENHANCE thing is much ado about nothing, as you can see from my post above. It is a perfect example of the mindset of the American liberal: corporations are inherently suspect, profit is virtually synonymous with greed, Americans should not have to make sacrifices for their healthcare, Congress knows what is best for all of us, etc.
What I think industry can learn from a site like this is that we need to lobby differently. We need to argue FOR things like guaranteed patent life after a product comes to market, preemption in return for much more transparency around trials, the free flow of scientific articles whether they are on-label or not…We need to have better PR with the public to let them know the direction research is going (biologics, pharmacogenomics) and the inordinate amount of resources this is going to involve. For example, I think the CEO of my company should make the time in his schedule to hold several “town hall” type meeting across the country–where he engages the average person. I am sure any CEO of a Fortune 500 company who heard that would scoff, but I think pharma reaching out and listening would do wonders for public perception.
All in all, I think Ed does a good job with Pharmalot. I lose my temper occasionally (and get very sarcastic), but I think I am holding my own on the board–and there are a few of us speaking FOR the industry.
Laurie
” I have “spoken” with Ed a bit and I think he is more balanced than you give him credit for.”
OMG..Horus and I agree on something! :)
Ed Silverman
Dear Dr. T,
Let’s put a few things on the table. With all due respect, it would appear you’re unfamiliar with this site. First, I run it full time - about 12 to 15 hours/day - since early last year. If you looked at Pharmalot regularly or closely, you would notice that I post items all day long, sometimes in the evening, and sometimes on weekends. This is more than a full-time job and I’ve not written for the newspaper since launching this site. There’s no time.
Second, the blogosphere is an experiment for all journalists. This is a place where new media is merging with old media. So yes, there are times when I inject thoughts or questions into posts. I may include a provocative line. If you have read the site closely over the past 15 months, however, you would have noticed the vast majority of posts are straight news items. Now and then, I run question-and-answer interviews. Once in a while, I run polls. I may post a video. I rarely run an an entire opinion piece of my own.
Moreover, the SGP/AHA piece is not commentary, or a musing, as you put it. It is straight reportage - the very same kind of story that actually would have run in a newspaper had I still been writing for a newspaper. Why? It speaks to an ongoing controversy and the larger issue of how a drugmaker conducts itself. Schering-Plough’s conduct has been of interest for months. This is part of that larger story. And I spoke with Caplan because I was wondering about he would view the way this tidbit may fit into the larger picture. He spelled it out. If you have an issue with his points, why don’t you address him?
You mention recirculating items. First, I link to many sources and sites when they report or write something first. That’s not only obligatory, but courteous. And other blogs reciprocate when I report and write something first, including the WSJ Health blog. You may not realize it, but everyone is reading everyone else in the blogosphere. As to CafePharma, I’ve mentioned many times before that, while it resembles an electronic bathroom wall, there is also a great deal of interesting info that surfaces over time if one is familiar with the lingo and the companies being discussed. I’ve gotten legit stories about corporate plans by paying close attention, and then checking out what I read. Which leads me to another point - I do original reporting as well on this site. Since you seem taken with conventional media, I’ll point out that my posts have been picked up by Forbes and Bloomberg News, for instance. And the NYT health page includes Pharmalot in its On the Web space every day.
If you had read Pharmalot closely you would have also noticed that I’ve written the following before - no, I am not anti-pharma. I live and work in suburban New Jersey, where many large drugmakers are located. Their proximity to my town and nearby towns is an economic benefit. These companies employ some of my family, relatives, friends and acquaintances, including the parents of children who play with my children. These people are in finance, research, IT and management. Moreover, I take meds, as do my immediate family members, whenever needed. I want safe and affordable meds just like most when my kids are sick or some health issue needs to be managed.
You seem taken with the notion this site is anti-pharma. It’s not. The reality is that pharma is undergoing enormous change and challenge. And that causes tension. And its my job to follow that tension. And that tension plays out in different ways across different topics - intellectual property and compulsory licensing; patent reform; biologics; preemption; DTC advertising; earnings; off-label marketing; executive pay and executive changes; pricing issues; new research; experimental meds; FDA reform. All of which I have written about extensively. It’s a long list. I choose topics that are of interest to many different readers, or viewers, within a large pharma world.
The industry has many cheerleaders, Dr. T - they work for trade groups and in public relations. That’s not my job. My job is to chronicle and highlight the issues confronting an industry that is trying to adapt, survive and prosper. There’s a lot at stake for everyone. But it’s not my job to look the other way when thorny issues arise. I like to think that an industry that improves its business practices, while it continues to find new ways to treat illness, would benefit all concerned. And that’s not a negative - that’s a positive.
Hope this helps,
ed
Laurie
Keep up the good work Ed!
HorusCat
Laurie,
;+) We probably agree on more than you think, if we sat and talked face-to-face. The nature of this site makes people talk in extremes.
Ed, that was a very good explanation of what you do. Well done.
susan
Pharmalot/Star Ledger??
Ed - I must admit this is confusing and needs more transparency.
The homepage of the Pharmalot website links to state,
“Ed Silverman is a prize winning journalist who has covered thepharmaceutical industry for the Star Ledger of New Jersey…for more than 12 years…”
So is this past tense or present?
Do you still work for the Star Ledger?
Full time? Part time?
Are you paid a salary by the Star Ledger?
What is the relationship of the Star Ledger to Pharmalot?
Do they support Pharmalot? For that matter, shouldn’t you disclose the sources of funding for Pharmalot to address any potential ‘conflicts of interest’?
Ed Silverman
Hi Susan,
This is very simple - I have been employed by The Star-Ledger of New Jersey since 1995. The Star-Ledger of New Jersey owns Pharmalot. I receive my salary and other benefits from the newspaper. I conceived the idea for Pharmalot and have run it on a full-time basis since it was launched in January 2007. The ‘about page’ bio was written at the time of launch, which is why the tense may confuse you.
If you look at the very bottom of the Pharmalot page, you will also see that the copyright is held by the Newark Morning-Ledger, which is a corporate affiliate. Also, quite often, but not always, when I link to a story that has appeared in the Ledger, I have noted the Ledger owns Pharmalot. The entire relationship is out in the open.
I appreciate the questions, and the curiosity and the interest in playing gotcha. I hope these answers are satisfactory.
Regards
ed
Laurie
“We probably agree on more than you think, if we sat and talked face-to-face. The nature of this site makes people talk in extremes. ”
Couldn’t agree more.
Laurie
“Meet the man behind Pharmalot, Ed Silverman of The Star-Ledger of New Jersey.”
Pretty much says it all.
Justice in Michigan
Agree with the addendum that we can, and have, often transcended that tendency. I think it is has less to do with the site than with the emotions stirred and the fact that _most_ such sites are combative.
Here, we spend more time than is typical trying to understand each other, and less knee-jerking.
Laurie
Yup, I think here we recognize how polarizing some of the subjects are…at least most try to see the big picture, which is sometime harder when the experience has hit one personally.
mark
Ethics II
I’m still concerned about the comments made by Dr T and the subsequent responses.
Unless Journalism Ethics is an oxymoron, just what are the operative rules today? Maybe I’m old fashioned but I thought legitimate newspapers and electronic media had certain principles for reporting, e.g. sources should be reliable, don’t make accusations without confirmatory sources, go to the accused for comment and print their point of view if they give one, etc… So, I guess Ed is playing in this new world of the blogosphere where these rules don’t apply. Hence, much of Pharmalot does look like an extension of the infamous bathroom wall of uncontested and unverified accusations. It is 90% attacks on pharma and rarely balanced or offering a pharma side of a story without snickering and snide commentary.
But, do Ed and the Star Ledger really get to play both sides in this ‘experiment’, i.e. if a story rises to the level of a legitimate newspaper story, print it… otherwise, let the smarmy accusations and innuendo fly in Pharmalot - and claim it’s just a blog?
Ed Silverman
Hi Mark,
With all due respect, if you have read Pharmalot closely, you would have found that I rely on the traditional journalistic approach to reporting in that I check out my info and include comments from those mentioned in posts. And I update when additional remarks and info later become available. (I use the word ‘UPDATE’ in bold letters). Again, some posts are original reportage and many others are actually linked from other media and sites. The conventional rules do, indeed, apply here. If you have an example suggesting otherwise, please let me know. I happily and readily correct and clarify posts when needed.
As to this post about SGP and the AHA, are you concerned that Caplan is not a legitimate or reliable source who’s views are warranted to include in a discussion of corporate conduct? There is no smarmy accusation or innuendo in the post, Mark. As I indicated previously, this was straight reportage concerning SGP’s conduct and judgement. You’re free to disagree that this is of interest or concern to some people, but it is.
As far as ‘uncontested and unverified accusations,’ please fill me in. Do the ‘attacks’ you refer appear in the comments section of the blog? Like others blogs run by major media and unknown individuals alike, the comments section here is open to remarks from people who have opinions all over the map. Your ‘90 percent’ figure, however, may be pulled out of thin air. Yes, there are attacks against pharma, and they may seem to represent the majority of comments, but that depends upon the subject of the post. If you closely read the threads in many of the most recent posts, for instance, you would find some rather interesting discussions that attempt to address the industry’s various dilemmas. Please read closely before making assumptions.
The comments section is open to everyone - even you. The comments, however, don’t reflect an official position. This experiment reflects what the blogosphere is capable of doing - forming communities where people can communicate about matters of concern. You’ve just joined in. And you’re welcome to continue doing so. But don’t confuse anyone comment - including yours - with my views or positions. Those are two separate concepts.
Hope this helps,
ed
Laurie
I find it very interesting that most of us have been posting comments on Pharmalot since it’s inception with no problem with the format, yet when SP gets mentioned all of a sudden Ed’s integrity gets called into question.
Pro, anti and neutral pharma folks have had no problem with the “method” of blogging, yet names never seen before all of a sudden take umbrage with it?
Just an observation.
truthman30
The pharmaceutical industry is fiercely competitive and if the executives who run the show were to stop and think “what’s best for patients?”, rather than, “what’s best for profits?” the dishonesty, the defective drugs and the greed would soon disappear…
Paul
Interesting debate. And that’s the great thing, this is the US and we do have freedom of speech.
I do respect Ed’s comments and opinions and his desire to balance the many cheerleaders of the industry. I fully commend the need and value to have such balance.
At the same time, I am troubled with some of the facts and tone that get thrown around here.
- I wish everyone, including Ed, would be more open to other opinions.
- I wish people would attack and discuss the issues, not the people.
- I wish there would be a realization that there are conflicts of interest everywhere. JAMA sleeping with The Prescription Project, and Kumholtz sleeping with plaintiff lawyers has to be a concern - but everyone just dismisses it as necessary crusading…sorry I don’t buy it.
Ed Silverman
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the note. And believe it or not, I am open to other opinions. I’m not sure what it is you’re referring to when you say you’d like me to be more open to other opinions, to be honest. But here are a few quick thoughts…
I don’t shut people down or out from the comments section. And I try to be respectful of the opinions expressed in the comments, even when I may disagree. Generally, though, I stay out of the comments section, unless I feel I have something to offer, there’s a need to redirect a thread, or I’ve been asked or challenged specifically to respond to something. But I don’t feel it’s my job to ensure any discussion have a particular tone or point of view.
Moreover, I cherish input from all parties when pursuing a story, and want as much as possible to be represented in my posts. If a drugmaker, for example, denies comment, whatever the reason and whatever the story, that’s the company’s decision. Not mine. But I want those views to be in the mix. Blogs are designed for more open communication than the industry is used to encountering, but it’s here to take advantage of, should anyone want. I’d like to see as many views expressed as possible, in fact.
I’ve also run a couple of guest columns - a sort of op-ed, if you will - and introduced those by noting I’d be open to doing more and invited suggestions. So if someone with legit creds, sufficient stature or unique experience has a suggestion and wants me to consider running something, I’m open to doing so. As I’ve always said, it’s a big pharma world and there’s room for all sorts of ideas.
Running this site is new and challenging. But I remain open to ideas because that’s how we learn - you, me and everyone else who stops by here - and while I’ll make mistakes from time to time, I have nothing to gain by excluding or rejecting certain opinions or views.
That’s my 1.5 cent, adjusted for the shrinking dollar.
Cheers
ed
CMC guy
Ed I think you do a fine job with this blog- diverse story content and wide ranging opinions without heavy handed moderation. As to the appearance of negative perspections of Pharma think are mostly due to reporting frequent self inflicted wounds that don’t seem to get learned from.
harpy
Ditto to CMC guy. Since when has stating the misdeeds of a company that has admitted committing misdeeds become synonymous with “attacking”?
I think some on this site could use a lesson on conversational terrorism.
Dave
The actions of Big Pharma are the reason for their very poor reputation, not the media! They have an incredibly horrible track record of buying influence and putting profits above all else. Do do so, they’ll bed down with any group that they believe will be able to benefit them. The AHA, ACC, ADA and others are all suspect because they pull big money out of Big Pharma!!
SP 1
This is not a big surprise regarding Schering-Plough. Given the actions of the past 6-12 months, it appears they are incapable of doing anything on the up-and-up! What a company! What a collection of execs! I think others need to strive to be unlike them!
Hans-Christian Andersen
I just love all of this crying from industry insiders. As the old saying goes, you live by the sword and you die by the sword. M-SP has driven the Vytorin/Zetia franchise to dizzying heights through the use of DTC. Now that the same media with awarded them with these (undeserved, unwarranted ?) riches is bringing them down a notch or two, they are crying foul!!! FoxNews recently reported the dilemma the network news faces in reporting these stories due to the amount of support they receive from Big Pharma. You could almost say they are biting the hand that feeds them. But just as many have questioned here, like it or not, it is the duty of the media to report the information that the public needs to be aware of in a fair balanced nature. I have yet to notice anywhere that Pharmalot has taken a purely one sided stance on any issue. I know that some of the pharma blogs have an ax to grind, but Pharmalot seems to maintain a high degree of journalistic integrity. Granted, every now and again we have a slow news day and the offerings seem a little thin, bordering on the conspiracy theory at times, but you even see this with the conventional news media.
I feel M-SP has clearly created this problem for themselves and have at umerous opportunities to nip this thing in the bud with an admission of error in handling the situation, a tone of contrition but they have remained arrogant if not belligerent in the face of evolving beliefs about cholesterol, cardiac impact, etc. The recent LA Times article showed that many Drs believed that they may have let Vytorin get out in front of them and were rxing first line when not warranted. The recent Crestor trial which showed that controlling inflammation in pts with cholesterol scroes too low to warrant statin treatment based on the numbers may dictate that lowering cholesterol is not the “surrogate” for heart disease that M-SP is trying to INFER. M-SP has received alot of business that is not warranted and now they are crying foul. I know it may be a stretch for some in the media to say, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE SAID. M-SP is the spoiled brat that needs to be punished and Congress is taking the paddle out now.
David
It seems that the note below was posted on the wrong item:
April 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm andy
How Ezetimibe (Zetia) was tested:
(CHERYL CORNACCHIA The Gazette Tuesday, February 24, 2004):
‘When a company contacted Colin Rose and offered to pay him $6,000 to refer patients to a drug study, they had the wrong doctor. Rose, a cardiologist at the Montreal General Hospital, not only said no, but he passed the written offer to the College des Medecins du Quebec, suggesting it investigate the ethics of paying doctors to refer patients. ‘
I’m about the last one on Earth they should have contacted,’ Rose said yesterday. It turns out that the physicians’ college doesn’t investigate those kinds of cases, but the doctor is no less upset by the offer to send patients to the study, which was sponsored by Merck Frosst. Rose, who is also an assistant professor of medicine at McGill University, is outspoken about what he sees as an increasingly cozy relationship between doctors and drug companies. He says it undermines doctors’ will to suggest alternatives like lifestyle changes instead of prescription drugs.
The hypercholesterolemia and coronary heart disease study to which Rose referred is being conducted by the Clinical Research Consultant Group at the Seaforth Medical Building on Cte des Neiges Rd. The group’s letter to Rose, dated Nov. 18, 2003, detailed how he would receive an honorarium of $6,000 if he referred at least one patient being treated for high cholesterol and heart disease. He would have been required to perform a physical exam of the patients at the beginning and end of the study and write the initial prescription. ‘
Nurses employed by the group would do the rest - seeing patients throughout the 12-week study. The study is evaluating the cholesterol-lowering efficacy of a 10-milligram dose of a drug called Ezetimibe when given with a 10-milligram or 20-milligram dose of Atorvastatin, another cholesterol-lowering drug. Both drugs are approved for use in Canada.
Rose later received an e-mail from Bernice Pynn, the lead researcher of the drug study, saying ‘at this time there is no discussion of publication’ of the study results. Pynn, a biochemist, was unavailable for comment yesterday. However, an assistant at the clinical research group confirmed the multisite study is sponsored by Merck Frosst. So far, she said, 15 patients are enrolled in Montreal. Vincent Lamoureux, a spokesperson for Merck Frosst in Kirkland, said doctors are sometimes compensated for their time. However, he said, he was unfamiliar with the study Rose cited, even though ‘there definitely seems to be a link to some of what we do.’
Copyright 2004 Montreal Gazette
Matt
It seems that there is no end to the shennanigans coming from Kenilworth. I think that Schering-Plough is all about the absolute worst that Big Pharma has to offer in 2008. Their executives should be ashamed.
Christy
Oh what a tangled web has been woven! As has been commonly said, “The appearance of impropriety is impropriety!” There seems to be quite a bit of appearance in this case.
Former SP
I hope that all this stuff gets dug up by Congress and the OIG. They will be shocked at what they find in Kenilworth!