Sorry for the belated reply. I agree that COI form is standard, but I posted it because folks like to see that sort of thing anyway. I don’t know for a fact that he’s close to Grassley’s staff or others in DC, so I chose not to include that for the obvious reason. Same thing for any aspirations; he’s never confirmed the speculation, or accusation, as it comes across when some discuss it.

Of course, the Cleveland Clinic may benefit when industry conducts tests. But there’s no guarantee what will happen as a result of the commmittee recommendation. I’ll leave that one to others to debate, because I’m sure there will be strong views, given the emotions Nissen generates anytime he’s at the center of the action.

Cheers
ed

Yes, there are those out there in the world who think that statin is satan spelled backward, who believe it’s all a conspiracy against garlic supplementation, etc.. But here we’re talking about specific policy issues - DTC, preemption, reps, etc. - upon which we have a wide range of views. But I see very few that that the pro/anti pharma dichotomy covers.

The best threads are when we see the range of views within a core consensus about what the issues are and, within whatever differences, learn from other.

Kumbaya.

(And agree with Nathan that we need specifics here about what is being recommended.)

And, yes. Grassley is THE leading light battling Pharma. Thank heavens for him, at least.

Actually I believe I recall reading Nissen has close ties with certain strong anti-pharma Beltway Politicos but not sure who (Grassley?)? Also suggestion has been made he is positioning to become future FDA Commissioner. These would be relevant COIs as underlying motivations that would not be expressed in the waiver letter.

Bottom line IMHO: It’s an additional burden for drugmakers, but not as bad as it could be.

Re: the last bit, I was being “ironic” in a probably indulgent way. I read some of the Nissen thread comments as having their own reductionism - not only that potential COIs should be considered (which I said there I agreed with) - but there was a little trashing going on too. Presumption of guilt, at least as I read it.

is Nissen really a “pharma critic” or at least the opposite of those who are “pro-pharma”? That, too, seems a bit reductionist to me. But I do agree that “ego” does not seem to be one of his deficiencies.

If you go to this link, you can read the COI waiver given Nissen. It doesn’t name specific drugmakers, but you can get an idea…

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/08/waivers/2008-4368w1-00-index.htm

ed

Based on available past information Nissen should require a level of scrutiny as a pharma critic in the same way occurs with pro-pharma people. I don’t know much about his particular COIs but comments I have seen out of him seem more ego enhancing than patient concerns.

At least as I understand it, they voted 14-2 essentially endorsing the same view that Naissen articulated. In the thread about him, a number of folks ridiculed him personally and suggested that his opinions should be scanned for COIs.

I’m all for scanning. But here are 16 people of whom 14 said, in essence, the same thing. They are mostly endocrinologists (not the sort of people you would think would want to fight the development of diabetes drugs). Plus a statistician, health educator, and one lipids/cardio person.

Anybody think they were “going after” pharma to line their own pockets?

Here is the committee roster…

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/08/roster/2008-4368r1-FDA-committee.pdf

Cheers
ed