Ed, I have included a link to this from ‘The Ethical Nag: Marketing Ethics for the Easily Swayed’ and will feature it in a future post.

As a heart attack survivor who now takes a fistful of cardiac meds every morning, I have become recently gobsmacked by almost-daily scandals like this that make me realize I have no clue which of these drugs have been prescribed for me based on tainted research, ghostwritten medical journal articles bought and paid for by drug companies, and the highly successful marketing machine of Big Pharma - and NEITHER DO MY DOCTORS.

I’ve spent my entire adult life working in public relations, and I can smell a good spin a mile away. That’s why I laughed right out loud at Pfizer’s press release, including the world’s longest disclaimer paragraph at the end. Allow me to translate the PR-speak for you: “Blahblahblah.”

It would be truly hilarious if it weren’t so downright dangerous to all patients whose docs have been ‘educated’ by drug companies like Pfizer.

Do you feel that senior managers in cases like these bear any responsibility? Suspend the issue of indictment or conviction. As is usual in such cases, those on the gov. side, including the whistleblower, talk about a “culture of corruption” in which illicit marketing was at least tacitly condoned, notwithstanding what was said in formal training.

From where you sit, do you see that _ever_ being the case in companies as large as Pfizer? Genuine question.

Well, sorry, but I can’t do much about subscription prices at The Pink Sheet, and we are working at gradually improving the quality of the content.

And believe it or not, there is no formal quid pro quo. I’m perfectly happy, however, to mention and link to stories from The Pink Sheet when they’re newsworthy - which could mean exclusive, insightful or simply different things that I’ve not seen elsewhere.

I did that in the past while running Pharmalot for The Star-Ledger of NJ - I excerpted copy from The RPM Report, another publication in the Elseiver business unit that includes the Pink Sheet - and provided a courtesy link, noting that a subscription was required to see the whole story. I’d done that with a couple of other pubs back then as well. Its just the way I’ve been operating.

That said, if there is a legit reason to link to a Pink Sheet story, presumably, all parties benefit in so far as there could be greater visibility for all involved. But as I’ve explained to all comers, I would, indeed, lose credibility if the site were to suddenly become an empty suit that exists mostly to hawk another publication or web site. In the end, there would be no point for me to run Pharmalot that way.

And I post two or three items at the beginning and end of each (most days, unless I’m busy or away from the laptop), and these generally don’t take very long. I can dash them off in less than an hour and, since I’m up quite early, can handle the morning copy flow without much difficulty. Again, that assumes there are no interruptions, such as getting kids off to school.

Perhaps there’s another way to think of this, which is that, as a journalist, I maintain a degree of visibility that provides me with additional opportunities to meet and talk to people - and learn what’s going on. This, in turn, informs my understanding of the industry and can provide tips and insights, which I’m free to share with colleagues. And yes, since I’m associated, obviously, with the Pink Sheet, the publication gains added visibility as well by extension.

It’s there for you to see and you can be the judge, as time goes on, how this gets handled. And sure, send me links and, if they’re truly newsworthy or quite different or insightful, I will consider linking. Just remember that Pharmalot is a side show and, in its latest incarnation, an experiment. I appreciate the skepticism, but at the end of the day, readers/viewers are either getting useful or interesting info, or they’re not. Hopefully, the mix that shows up over the course of a given week fits that bill.

Regards
Ed

Thanks for the response. The Pink Sheet stinks for many reasons, most importantly it charges too much for over-written, marginal copy, and its association with Elsevier. Your association with the Pink Sh1t makes me suspicious of your independence. I don’t believe your superiors would allow you to respond to comments (such as mine and others), post stories, and generate email distributions during normal Pink Sheet business hours unless there was some quid pro quo (pharmalot’s mentioning and links to certain pink sheet stories). One of my employees would be fired for trying to sell real estate during normal business hours, which is no different from what you are trying to pull off. Either your management is really dumb or they are on board with pharmalot’s use as an advertising vehicle.

Prove me wrong… I subscribe to various other fee-based services including pink sheet competitors. I’ll send you some links to these stories. Can you add some of these in your posts?

Well, I guess I’m simple-headed (or something), because I, too understood from the go, above, that Ed was being sarcastic. . . .

Maybe it is because I am aware of most of Ed’s prior reporting on Pfizer/Kindler/CIAs (and I share his jaundiced view of McKinsey’s occasional role at most big pharma companies) more generally — so, it seemed implied that the earlier $2.3 billion settlement contained this Committee bolstering/establishment provision. . .

You run a great, independent joint here, Ed — fret not.

Namaste

In any event, government prodding or no government prodding, Pfizer should have taken that step long before it came to this. You may not agree, but hopefully you follow my point. Kindler, after all, was general counsel while some of this occurred. Where was the commitment to compliance then?

And now a question for you - what do you have against The Pink Sheet? Whether or not you reply, for the record, I run Pharmalot as a stand-alone operation. I may link to other media - of all sorts - but I write the posts, unless I invite a guest columnist, which I have done in the past.

Hope this helps,
ed