A Forbes Guest Blogger And His Pharma Ties
15 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // February 23rd, 2010 // 7:39 am
Here’s an embarassing moment for Forbes. Over the past week, a physician contributed a few items to the magazine’s science blog, defending various drugs that have recently been criticized or scrutinized over safety issues. Among them were GlaxoSmithKline’s Avandia diabetes pill; asthma meds, including Glaxo’s Advair and AstraZeneca’s Symbicort; and statins, such as AstraZeneca’s Crestor.
However, the site never noted that the physician, Matthew Mintz, who is listed as an associate professor of medicine in the Department of Medicine at the George Washington University Medical Center in Wash., DC, had other credentials - consulting fees or advisory board participation for Glaxo and AstraZeneca, among others (look here). In the first second quarter of 2009, Glaxo paid him $11,050 (see here).
The oversight was corrected Monday afternoon when staffers for US Senator Chuck Grassley, who released a report over the weekend alleging Glaxo hid safety issues surrounding Avandia, complained to Forbes (perhaps they wanted to make Mintz meat out of him?) In response, Forbes placed an editor’s note on blog posts Mintz wrote over the past few days about Avandia and Advair, among other drugs, indicating his ties to various drugmakers.
There is nothing wrong, of course, with Forbes seeking guest bloggers, regardless of their views on a particular drug, company or issue. Dialogue is healthy and should be encouraged. The issue is not Mintz’ point of view. There is irony, though, that a lack of disclosure cropped up over an item about Glaxo’s own alleged lack of disclosure. And so a suggestion: In their rush to recruit contributors, web sites need to ask questions. And docs should be sporting and ensure pertinent info is posted.
patrons99
Who is most deserving of public scorn for this one? Mintz, pharma, Forbes? I vote for Mintz! Perhaps all blog sites should require disclosures of their posters. I really don’t know the answer to that one.
Lisa Van Syckel
patrons99, It’s “D”,.. all of the above.
patrons99
Yeah. Nothing really exceptional here. We shouldn’t be too harsh in our condemnation. One day he will face a day of reckoning, with his maker.
MedEthix
What GSK fails to understand is that their behavior is a significant part of the problem. The public record (such as FDA warning letters) clearly shows a lack of disclosure on the part of GSK and then GSK makes the following statement on their blog “More then Medicine”:
“Second, let’s address the idea that GSK did not share information the company had about the medicine’s safety.
Again, we disagree with that assertion. Any fair examination of the company’s record will show that GSK has been transparent in its efforts to thoroughly study the safety and effectiveness of Avandia, and to widely communicate that information to governments, regulatory authorities, scientific peers, physicians and others in a variety of ways.”
Marketers may call it spin, I call it a LIE. GSK was not transparent and they are clearly trying to misrepresent the public record on their actions. Such actions do nothing more than fuel public scorn of the pharma industry.
Pharma Conduct
Hi Ed: Just a minor correction: the period in which Mintz received $11,050 was actually 2nd Quarter 2009.
Rich Meyer
So because this physician took $11,000 from GSK we are supposed to discount his scientific and medical response to the Avandia paranoia ? Mr Silverman continues to attack and attack the drug and medical device industry while NEVER having spent one day working in any real company. Shame on him for missing the real story here which was GSK’s lack of transparency and unwillingness to embrace the facts with science and medicine
Ed Silverman
Hi Rich,
Thanks for your note, although I think you may have missed my point, which was only about disclosure, an issue that has come up in numerous venues over the past few years as a way to further dialogue. I noted that Mintz’s views weren’t the issue - regardless whether one agreed or not - nor was the specific amount of money involved.
As an aside, I didn’t ‘attack’ any company - over the last few days, I posted a few Avandia items, two of which essentially aggregated what was reported by the NY Times, with credit and links. And these do raise the issue you note - transparency and embracing science and medicine. I did one item of my own earlier this week, citing an inconsistency, or so it appeared, in Glaxo’s statement this past weekend about full disclosure of Avandia data and other info. That was about transparency, which is what you claim I have missed.
As for working for a drug company, no, I haven’t. I’m a journalist. But media companies are real companies, too, only of a different sort.
Hope this helps,
ed
pharmavet
Patrons, which circle of Hell are you relegating Mintz to? Seems like several might be appropriate.
http://www.wsu.edu/~alake/the_circles_of_hell.htm
patrons99
Very good, pharmavet. Please tell me that you’re not an “anything goes”, secular progressive. Suffice it to say, I am politically independent and I will always place my trust in God. Least anyone forget, so too did our Founding Fathers and Framers of Our Constitution.
As to which circle of Hell is most appropriate for the good doctor, I wouldn’t presume to pass judgment on him. I have no idea, what skeletons if any he might have in his closet, nor would I wish to know. His deeds seem to indicate that he is just another in the legion of greedy, shameless, sociopaths (a.k.a. pharma shills), with no conscience or moral compass. The court of public opinion will pass judgment on him, now that he’s been outed.
Pharma Giles
I can’t agree with Rich Meyer’s lop-sided view of your journalism: to use his own words, he goes out of his way to point out everything that is wrong with someone who doesn’t share his rosy view of docs who cosy up to their paymasters. At a lousy $11K though, you could hardly say that Mintz is minting it.
And there’s no reason to doubt the outcome of the RECORD study, which concludes that Avandia is no worse that other glucose-lowering agents when it comes to “overall cardiovascualr morbidity”. Th ebottom line is that Avandia really is just another me-too “glitazone” that may offer some advantages to some patients, and the same disadvantages to most.
What is indefensible is the not-so-nimble sumo tactics of GSK’s rottweilers in trying to suppress, discredit, out-spin or intimidate Avandia’s critics. For that reason alone GSK deserves to lose a foothold in the diabetes market. I don’t see a problem with anything you have written on that score to date, Ed.
That nice Mr. Viebacher, now CEO at Sanofi, just happened to be GSK’s US Head at the time. He really is just the sort of man Sanofi need to place a firm hand on the tiller and sail them into a new decade of Big Pharma transparency and humility…
Let’s watch that space, rather than that around some rather naive medics…
patrons99
Evidentally, the good Dr Mintz made his Faustian bargain with pharma quite some time ago. He does not appear to be a newbie to these kinds of ethical lapses. To quote the good doctor:
“The FDA just killed a few asthmatics!”
“I have blogged extensively regarding LABA safety (see The Lowdown on LABA’s , Good News for Asthma Patients , Asthma Medication: Calling Out the Safey Advocates and Dear FDA, Remove the Boxed Warning from Advair and Symbicort )”
For a recent article on the LABAs, see this LA Times article by Andrew Zajac:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/19/nation/la-na-fda-asthma19-2010feb19
Mintz’s posting at Forbes’ blog on February 19th just happened to coincide with the LA Times article. Coincidental? NOT!!!
“Editor’s note: On Feb. 22 we discovered that Dr. Matthew Mintz has received consulting and speaking fees from GlaxoSmithkline. In January, Dr. Mintz signed our standard writer’s agreement specifying the disclosure of “any actual or potential conflict of interest.” Dr. Mintz did not flag the payments from GlaxoSmithkline when filing his posts.”
Forbes disclaimer (above) is disingenuous at best. Senator Grassley’s staffers were very appropriate is seeking to make “mince meat” of this particularly egregious GSK shill. Does Forbes receive DTC advertising $$$ from pharma? – real question, I don’t subscribe to Forbes.
Christopher
patrons - I know you are passionate about this stuff, but - seriously - why wouldn’t a blogger want to be posting close to an original article on which he/she is commenting? Ed does it all the time. That’s why they are topical and why we read them.
pharmavet
Patrons, I’m not a secular progressive at all. In fact I’ve adopted the 12-step principles to my daily life. In this case, Step 7 would apply: “Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings”.
patrons99
Christopher: I am not pretending to be an investigative reporter. That’s Ed’s area of expertise. As for any “passion about this stuff” that you may perceive, I do not apologize.
I simply mentioned the LA Times article because Mintz’s post at Forbes on February 19th is effectively pharma “spin”, misinformation to mislead the public as to the VERY real safety concerns by FDA surrounding the use of the LABAs. They already have a black box warning. Apparently, FDA has identified some NEW safety signals regarding the LABAs. I’m sure there will be more to follow on this topic. In fact, I hope that Ed is all over the REAL story here, when it does break.
Just as Mintz did with Avandia and the statins, so he also made posts at Forbes’ blog site on the LABAs, all apparently without ever disclosing his rather substantial COIs. The point I tried to make was that the timing of his LABA post to Forbes was not fortuitous. It was proactive, intended to defuse the bad news from FDA regarding the LABAs.
patrons99
Pharmavet: Perhaps, we’re not so different after all.