Comments on: What Changes? Pfizer Fudged Neurontin Studies

By: company insider

company insider — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:57:21 +0000

Just to clarify, the Class study was a Celebrex study that’s primary endpoint was not significiant so Pfizer used the secondary endpoints to claim superiority of Celebrex over old Nsaids. THen pulled the study like it was never done from the sales force without saying a word.

By: company insider

company insider — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:53:16 +0000

If you want to have some more fund, just look at what Pfizer did to the Class study in the 2002 package insert. By 2004, they would not let the reps have the study any longer and by 2005 the FDA made them re-write the package insert and correct all these fraudulant statements in the 2002 package insert. Pfizer also did the same thing with the Relpax studies used to get Relpax approved even after the FDA had rejected the superiority claims. THe very same thing that they appear to have done with Neurotin however this time they were using their own sales force.

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:35:28 +0000

Harpy–”Crickets”? I don’t get it.

By: anon

anon — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:18:14 +0000

says Pfizer “We believe the review suffers from significant bias, insufficient data, poor methodology, and cannot pass the threshold of credible scientific research,”

and Pfizer certainly is an expert in all of the above.

who lets the company get away with this, the FDA, HHS, doctors?
what are our representatives in government doing about this? if nothing vote them out.

By: BP Watch

BP Watch — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:11:05 +0000

This is business as usual for Big Pharma. The commercial divisions frequently squash or markedly delay bad data. Just think about the ENHANCE fiasco and how many more money was made because of the delays! Virtually every major company has contributed to this problem -some much more than others.

By: harpy

harpy — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:38:53 +0000

crickets, JiM, crickets…

By: terry

terry — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:22:39 +0000

Pfizer is so gangster!

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:38:07 +0000

When Pfizer received the $2.3 B fine, the usual defenders of off-label promotion–Scott Gottlieb, for example–defended the company as simply providing valuable medical information to HCPs.

Now that we’ve learned, yet again, that a great part of what the company provided about Neurontin was bogus, biased, and cherr-picked, what do the defenders of off-label promotion say _about this case_?

And what do the folks here say who reiterated that only a relative handful of district sales managers were responsible for the cases in the big bust? Is it remotely conceivable that the repeated deceptions described in NEJM were the work of a few “cowpokes”?

The conclusion seems unavoidable that this is business as usual. Help me avoid it.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:13:06 +0000

Way to go Pfizer! Nothing like putting giving the American public another reason to trust ‘The Company’
Nothing like giving the public another reason to trust this corrupt industry. At the rate that pharmaceutical companies are defrauding the tax payer, we’ll have universal healthcare paid for in no time.
Congratulations Pfizer!
You’ve truly earned it.