Comments on: Doc Faces Fraud In Pfizer Research Case

By: David Granovsky

David Granovsky — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:22:59 +0000

“…the largest research fraud in medical history. Dr. Scott Reuben, a former member of Pfizer’s speakers’ bureau, has agreed to plead guilty to faking dozens of research studies that were published in medical journals…His research…published in a medical journal, has since been quoted by hundreds of other doctors and researchers as “proof” that Celebrex helped reduce pain during post-surgical recovery. There’s only one problem with all this:
No patients were ever enrolled in the study!”
http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/pfizer-celebrex-bextra-vioxx-clinical-trial-results-were-fake-fraud/

By: Tombo

Tombo — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:16:37 +0000

I know who’s not keeping their grammar license.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:44:29 +0000

Is this guy ending up keeping his medical license?

By: pharmavet

pharmavet — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:23:02 +0000

Dear Patrons99: Just FYI, but I actually ended the practice of incentivizing investigators for speedier enrollment. Honestly speaking, I didn’t do it out of altruistic motives. I did it because speedier enrollment resulted in fewer truly qualified study subjects, thus incentivization is actually a self-defeating practice, at least for me. As a Pharma Director in the 1990’s I ordered a top to bottom review of every clinical task to bring a drug to market, from first dose in humans to NDA filing. I learned that the best we could do was shave one year off the timelines, but it would take cutting corners and possibly having an unapproveable NDA as a result. In this case I was actually rewarded for NOT making any changes to the program. I can’t speak for other program directors, but the above situations taught me that speed in clinical research tends to be counterproductive

By: patrons99

patrons99 — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:20:30 +0000

Pharmavet: I seem to have touched a sensitive nerve. If your conscience is clear, I applaud you, sir. In your extensive career in clinical research did you ever attend investigators’ “meetings”? were you ever “rewarded” for meeting study subject enrollment targets? were you ever “rewarded” with additional studies? were you ever granted study protocol “waivers”? did you personally write or make substantive contribution to writing all of the research publications that bear your name? Is your C.V. on the internet, linking you to your “research”, and to all of the “co-authors” in your study group, and to your corporate sponsors? Where did your research subjects come from? Did they come from your clinical practice? When did your research subjects sign an informed consent? Before or after they were “pre-screened”? Who paid for the screening failures?

I wonder how Reuben’s co-authors feel about knowing he’s been indicted for health care fraud? Perhaps, they should have been a bit more discerning. It’s fair to say that Reuben has made it into the Hall of Shame. Which version of the Oath of Hippocrates did he swear to?

By: Justice in MI

Justice in MI — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:20:59 +0000

I’d also say this. It is pretty much a certainty that Pfizer’s own research people knew more about the potential benefits Reuben claimed to find than Reuben alone.

So what are the odds they didn’t at least suspect that his data were bogus? And what are the odds that, so suspecting, they didn’t let it fly anyway?

By: Justice in MI

Justice in MI — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:14:21 +0000

for Christopher and others–personally, I didn’t bring “big pharma” into it.

I do believe, however, that corruption begets corruption. What I would love to see is evidence that Pfizer ever questioned Reuben on where his data came from rather than rewarding him with grants and speakerships. I’m not say they were obliged to do so. But I would be happily surprised if they did.

By: pharmavet

pharmavet — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:49:48 +0000

Sorry, Patrons99. You’re making quite a broad assertion about the scope of clinical research fraud. I can only defend myself. I have a PhD in the biomedical sciences, and spent 28 years doing clinical research across many therapeutic areas, for both major and small companies. I will stand by every data point that I ever generated and every word that was published in support of the clinical trials under my supervision. Be careful about painting with too broad a brush.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:06:49 +0000

Nowhere in Ed’s piece is there any suggestion that the sponsoring company had anything to do with Reuben’s fraud. Apparently he received research grants (from Pfizer) who supposedly did not handle or publish the data. Yet we have the usual skepticism and ‘Big Pharma’s misdeeds’ brought into the discussion. The story is about a fraudulent investigator and yet it becomes, once more, another chance to take potshots at the pharma industry.

By: Betsy

Betsy — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:51:44 +0000

I wrote a paper 3 months ago about the behaviors of Big Pharma and was paid handsomely for that paper, but the editor of the journal chickened out of publishing it AFTER she paid me.

One of the stories I included was the above story about Scott Ruben. His fraud has been known for some time.

Amazing, isn’t it?

When you’ve done as much research as I have, one would think that I’d stop being surprised at all of Big Pharma’s misdeeds. I haven’t!