Comments on: Wyeth Paid Ghostwriters To Boost Prempro

By: Gregory

Gregory — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 05:32:19 +0000

Hello Bob,
None of the above, but thanks for asking: of all your options I’m probably closest to number 4. I think you are in a different conversation to the one I commented on, which was the original point of the post.

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 05:00:27 +0000

CHRISTOPHER: Obviously, your wife doesn’t have breast cancer from the drug as my loved one does! I’m betting you are either an attorney that works for scumbags like these or an employee of Wyeth or are simply an unbelievable dumbass.

By: formermarketingexec

formermarketingexec — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:05 +0000

Pharmavet is telling the truth!

If you want to experience this first hand, just go to a major CME conference and watch the presenters then stand up and ask the obvious questions based on the “missing” data. They generally reply with “um, I do not know the answer to that question” Of course they do not, they haven’t seen the raw data. However, they were very excited to have the Pharma company write the article for them and hand them a nice fat cheque. It is something like Tom Sawyer, people are actually paying the doctors for the privilege of doing the doctors work for them.

But Yes, as noted, in the end it is the patients who pay for it, and some with their lives….

See this link for a JAMA review of a book on the subject:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/300/22/2675

When will this ever stop?

By: Salmon

Salmon — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:54:38 +0000

Different peer reviewers have different standards. Some are incredibly harsh so as to slow up publication so they can publish first, others take the attitude just throw it out there and let the community weigh the junk.

By: LF Velez

LF Velez — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 03:25:09 +0000

How is it that the peer reviewers and editors of the journals aren’t part of this investigation?

Look — Wyeth, GSK, Roche, Sanofi — all pharmaceutical companies have publication plans. So do technology companies. I would be surprised if there were _any_ corporations that didn’t have hopes for where their products might be discussed, and made deliberate efforts to get those products discussed in the most prominent and well-regarded venues. But no matter how a manuscript is written, or by whom, those efforts only come to fruition when a journal editor decides to select one of the manuscripts for publication.

So why did the Prempro articles see the light of day? Because peer reviewers and editors [the gatekeepers] thought they were scientifically sound and worthy of being part of the scientific literature. It would be an interesting bit of research to see how many, if any, Prempro articles were pulled from publication schedules once the real patterns in the long term data were confirmed.

One other thing to keep in mind is that the guidelines for authorship, manuscript development, and disclosure of industry influence were different than they are now.

By: tom

tom — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 15:44:48 +0000

This is not about ghostwriting itself. It is about people dying, because of the greed of pharmaceuticals. It is not about the past, but about righting a wrong. This practice seems to be pervasive with other companies as well. If say, 3,000 people died as a consequence, in long, painful deaths- to the victims it makes little difference whether this was caused by an airplane crashing on the twin-towers, or by the pure greed of a corporation, and of those bystanders who gladly accepted those consulting fees.

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:45:29 +0000

p.s. In case there’s any question, I do understand that the meaning of “knowing” _may_ be complicated in any particular instance, and the question of what a company does, or ought to do, in response to what it _may_ know can also be complex in particular instances.

That’s why I emphasize “knowingly” and “deliberate” in the above.

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:54:40 +0000

What did they know? When did they know it? What did they do? Those are the questions that apply to this case and any similar one.

If ghostwriting was used to _knowingly_ mispresent the risks of a product, it is obviously wrong-doing, no? It’s not the ghostwriting that’s wrong. It’s not the data mining that’s wrong. It’s the deliberate misinforming of doctors and patients, with potentially lethal consequences.

Is there another way to see it?

By: pharmavet

pharmavet — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:54:04 +0000

Pharmaceutical clinical medical ghostwriting does not involve the company providing the database to the ghostwriters writers and saying “have a go at it, draw your own conclusions”. Based on my experience in several companies, here’s what actually happens:

1) The publication plan is developed by the Marketing department, with little or no input from Medical

2) Marketing develops the spin they want each article to have, so as to add up to a favorable overall picture.

3) The efficacy database is selectively provided to the ghost writers, many of whom have only a rudimentary knowledge of biostatistics and do not know the right questions to ask. For example a ghostwriter often does not know the meaninglessness of subgroup analyses or repeated measure analyses that could never be used promotionally, and therefore write glowingly about basically worthless data. Unfortunately many of the journal reviewers also lack statistical sophistication, which is why they publish this stuff. Most pharma biostatisticians are straight up people, and they would cringe at the way some of their analyses are used.

4) Ghostwriters make their money on repeat business. Therefore it is not in their financial interest to criticize the data.

By: Doc

Doc — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:28:11 +0000

Anytime motive is suspect and full disclosure is absent, patients suffer - even if it was 20 years ago.