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.

“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.

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…

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.

http://www.wsu.edu/~alake/the_circles_of_hell.htm

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