Various Topics on Alternative Medicine

..te..

Excerpt:

"The companies design the drug trials," Sharav says. "They select the
subjects. They maintain and interpret the data. They select which parts
get published. They choose who will become the reviewers in the
prestigious medical journals. And they pick 'key opinion leaders,' who
they pay handsomely" to promote the drugs. "It's perfect," she
concludes. "They have it made."

(complete article below)

--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck Move Shows Industry Adrift

By Melissa Davis
Senior Writer
5/9/2005 7:05 AM EDT

When Merck (MRK:NYSE - news - research) crowned a new CEO last week,
some disappointed investors saw fresh evidence of an entire industry
that has yet to get its priorities straight.

Merck chose an insider without a background in medicine at a time when
observers agree that the company desperately needs to focus on
developing new drugs. Moreover, Merck made its selection even after its
glory faded under a previous nondoctor, Ray Gilmartin.

Richard Clark, tapped last week to replace the embattled Gilmartin, is
no master of drug research or even the marketing activities that, to
the dismay of some, now seem to drive the industry. He has instead
spent his 33 years at Merck concentrating on such areas as
manufacturing and information technology.

"That was the best they could get?" asks Peter Cohan, an investment
strategist who praises Merck's last physician CEO -- Roy Vagelos -- in
his book The Technology Leaders. "It is hard to see how a manager
lacking experience in drug development can help revive the critical
pipeline of new drugs that contributed to the success of this once
great company."

These days, however, the entire drug industry seems far less admirable
than it once did. The past year, in particular, has taken a heavy toll
on both the industry's reputation and its stock performance.

Merck has simply fared worse than most. The company's withdrawal of
Vioxx, a popular painkiller linked to heart attacks, has eliminated a
huge source of corporate profits and triggered a flood of lawsuits that
could lead to billions of dollars worth of damages.

But it has also raised concerns about the drug industry as a whole.
Public leaders have begun to question how companies manage to gain
regulatory approval of drugs like Vioxx and then turn them into wildly
profitable blockbusters. And they have come to recognize the industry's
incredible influence -- over drug development, approval and even
consumption -- in the process. In this first installment of a five-part
series this week, TheStreet.com examines these apparent conflicts and
their implications for these companies and their investors.

Vera H***ner Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research
Protection, has been warning about such powers for years.

"The companies design the drug trials," Sharav says. "They select the
subjects. They maintain and interpret the data. They select which parts
get published. They choose who will become the reviewers in the
prestigious medical journals. And they pick 'key opinion leaders,' who
they pay handsomely" to promote the drugs.

"It's perfect," she concludes. "They have it made."

But that formula, which doesn't guarantee important new cures, could be
starting to backfire. Drug stocks like Merck and Pfizer (PFE:NYSE -
news - research) have been profitable investments in the past. However,
those stocks -- hurt by withdrawn drugs and the lack of new drugs to
replace them -- have lately fared worse than the broader market. Both
stocks are, in fact, worth about 25% less than they were just one year
ago.

Government Scrutiny


That decline has come at a time when government officials, particularly
in the U.K., have stepped up their scrutiny of the industry.

During a recent in-depth study, U.K. leaders uncovered plenty that
troubled them. For starters, they found that drug companies can
specifically design clinical trials to deliver favorable -- but
possibly misleading -- outcomes. Richard Nicholson, editor of the
Bulletin of Medical Ethics, cited a Merck trial of Vioxx as one
example.

"We wondered to ourselves why on earth Merck wants to compare this with
naproxen," a drug popularly known as Aleve, Nicholson said. "They did
not give us the details initially, and then when we asked and asked, we
finally found out they had already carried out major trials against the
two major anti-inflammatory drugs ... and found absolutely no advantage
of their drug."

Yet another medical expert, the internationally recognized David Healy,
said that drug companies often run numerous trials in an attempt to
yield any favorable results at all. He said the companies then share
only their positive findings and cl***ify the rest of the trials,
rather than the drugs themselves, as failures.

"The companies can pick out the pieces of data that suit them," Healy
told TheStreet.com. "That's the part that gets the drug through" the
regulatory process. "And after that, they only have to show the good
bits of data to the rest of the world."

Healy is perhaps best known for highlighting problems ***ociated with
the popular cl*** of antidepressants known as selective serotonin
reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs. He has long insisted that the drugs,
including Eli Lilly's (LLY:NYSE - news - research) household name
Prozac, are less effective -- and less safe -- than many people
realize.

Still, such drugs have been blockbusters from the beginning.

In the decade after SSRIs first hit the market, the U.K. committee
noted, prescriptions for antidepressants more than tripled. Critics
blame the 1992-97 "Defeat Depression Campaign," promoted by
psychiatrists but financed in large part by the drug industry itself,
for part of that trend.

Related Stories
AstraZeneca Forecasts Run the Gamut
Pressure Stays on Pfizer
Merck Floats Vioxx Re-Stock
Vioxx Fans Have Their Say
FDA Maverick Whips Merck, Pfizer Over Painkillers
FDA Panel Mulls Vioxx Risk
Merck Fans Cross Fingers


The campaign "led us to being told that a third of the population were
depressed, that we should screen for it, that we should start using
antidepressants early, and we did," physician Des Spence told the U.K.
committee. "As time has gone on, I have certainly begun to realize that
in some ways, yes, there are many people who do have depression, but
lots of people are just unhappy, and that is a part of life. So there
is a whole generation of people coming up who almost feel that being
unhappy is an abnormal state -- which, of course, it is not."

Meanwhile, SSRIs remain wildly popular drugs. Eli Lilly still profits
handsomely from Prozac, the first "miracle" antidepressant of its kind,
despite negative publicity and -- perhaps more importantly -- generic
competition. The same can be said of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK:NYSE - news -
research) and its own SSRI, Paxil. Meanwhile, Pfizer continues to count
Zoloft as one of its best-selling drugs.

Call for Change




Sharav, for one, is sickened by those sales.

"Suddenly, half the nation is mentally ill," she says. "That's
nonsense."

Frustrated by the industry's power -- and inspired by the scrutiny
overseas -- Sharav is now in the process of organizing an unprecedented
conference that, she hopes, will ultimately convince national leaders
of the need for sweeping changes. Already, Sharav has lined up an
impressive roster of speakers who are eager to discuss ways to overcome
the powerful influence of the pharmaceutical companies. She says that
several noted authors and a slew of big-name medical researchers, "the
whole Harvard crew," have agreed to participate. So has the insider
from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration who exposed the agency's
mishandling of Vioxx, she says, along with whistleblowers at companies
like Pfizer and Merck.

Of course, Sharav realizes, the conference must secure financing
outside the cash-rich drug industry it is attempting to expose.

"Nobody could get a roster like this," Sharav said. "But there's a
little catch: How do we get sponsors? It is so difficult."

Still, Cohan points out that the drug companies face difficulties of
their own, despite -- and perhaps even because of -- the power that has
helped them out in the past. Even after exercising all of their
influence, he notes, the companies still need a key ingredient for
success.

"The whole industry has fallen down on drug development," he says. "And
no amount of influence -- or even marketing -- can make up for a dry
hole in the pipeline."

© 1996-2005 TheStreet.com, Inc. All rights reserved.

..v.. ..ig..

In article <1115648968.377819.211910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>Excerpt:
>
>"The companies design the drug trials," Sharav says. "They select the
>subjects. They maintain and interpret the data. They select which parts
>get published. They choose who will become the reviewers in the
>prestigious medical journals. And they pick 'key opinion leaders,' who
>they pay handsomely" to promote the drugs. "It's perfect," she
>concludes. "They have it made."

Better question: What's Ailing PeterB? Since he's posting an article
about pharmaceutical companies on m.h.a, even though the article had
nothing to do with alt med.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a
deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty
clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor

..te..

David Wright wrote:
> In article <1115648968.377819.211910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >Excerpt:
> >
> >"The companies design the drug trials," Sharav says. "They select
the
> >subjects. They maintain and interpret the data. They select which
parts
> >get published. They choose who will become the reviewers in the
> >prestigious medical journals. And they pick 'key opinion leaders,'
who
> >they pay handsomely" to promote the drugs. "It's perfect," she
> >concludes. "They have it made."
>
> Better question: What's Ailing PeterB? Since he's posting an article
> about pharmaceutical companies on m.h.a, even though the article had
> nothing to do with alt med.

Why David, how good of you to drop in! My thinking is that without a
full appreciation for pharmaceuticals, one might never fully appreciate
the alternatives. Fair enough?

Peter

..dyLollip..

"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:mLUfe.390$Lu6.156@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com. ..
> In article <1115648968.377819.211910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>Excerpt:
>>
>>"The companies design the drug trials," Sharav says. "They select the
>>subjects. They maintain and interpret the data. They select which parts
>>get published. They choose who will become the reviewers in the
>>prestigious medical journals. And they pick 'key opinion leaders,' who
>>they pay handsomely" to promote the drugs. "It's perfect," she
>>concludes. "They have it made."
>
> Better question: What's Ailing PeterB?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


Since he's posting an article
> about pharmaceutical companies on m.h.a, even though the article had
> nothing to do with alt med.

WOW!!!!!

Pathetic!


>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always WRONG

>
>
>

..v.. ..ig..

In article <1115693760.636098.223000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups .com>,
PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>David Wright wrote:
>> In article <1115648968.377819.211910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
>> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>> >Excerpt:
>> >
>> >"The companies design the drug trials," Sharav says. "They select
>the
>> >subjects. They maintain and interpret the data. They select which
>parts
>> >get published. They choose who will become the reviewers in the
>> >prestigious medical journals. And they pick 'key opinion leaders,'
>who
>> >they pay handsomely" to promote the drugs. "It's perfect," she
>> >concludes. "They have it made."
>>
>> Better question: What's Ailing PeterB? Since he's posting an article
>> about pharmaceutical companies on m.h.a, even though the article had
>> nothing to do with alt med.
>
>Why David, how good of you to drop in! My thinking is that without a
>full appreciation for pharmaceuticals, one might never fully appreciate
>the alternatives. Fair enough?

Quite a stretch, actually. You're a hair's breadth away from the
demented Drew, who feels that *any* health topic is appropriate for
m.h.a. Your approach would make m.h.a a superset of, say,
sci.med.pharmacy.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a
deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty
clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor

..dyLollip..

"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:WkWfe.427$Lu6.77@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com.. .
> In article <1115693760.636098.223000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups .com>,
> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>David Wright wrote:
>>> In article <1115648968.377819.211910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
>>> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>> >Excerpt:
>>> >
>>> >"The companies design the drug trials," Sharav says. "They select
>>the
>>> >subjects. They maintain and interpret the data. They select which
>>parts
>>> >get published. They choose who will become the reviewers in the
>>> >prestigious medical journals. And they pick 'key opinion leaders,'
>>who
>>> >they pay handsomely" to promote the drugs. "It's perfect," she
>>> >concludes. "They have it made."
>>>
>>> Better question: What's Ailing PeterB? Since he's posting an article
>>> about pharmaceutical companies on m.h.a, even though the article had
>>> nothing to do with alt med.
>>
>>Why David, how good of you to drop in! My thinking is that without a
>>full appreciation for pharmaceuticals, one might never fully appreciate
>>the alternatives. Fair enough?
>
> Quite a stretch, actually. You're a hair's breadth away from the
> demented Drew, who feels that *any* health topic is appropriate for
> m.h.a. Your approach would make m.h.a a superset of, say,
> sci.med.pharmacy.


Arrogant, know it all, David just can't get it through his head that *ANY*
health topic is appropriate right here. The ones he suggests are not
appropriate are those that expose the ugly truth. Along with the word
*demented*, here is a collection of what he had to say last week.

s***bag You still haven't learned anything You just think you have.

nutball wrong headed simpton you won't understand lunacy

fevered brain (what's left of it).

you are a loon This particular bit of lunacy your fevered imagination

monomaniacs who are incapable of absorbing any information

Hey, up yours
=
LL/Jan

>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
> "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a
> deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty
> clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor
>
>

..te..

David Wright wrote:
> In article <1115693760.636098.223000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups .com>,
> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >David Wright wrote:
> >> In article
<1115648968.377819.211910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
> >> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Excerpt:
> >> >
> >> >"The companies design the drug trials," Sharav says. "They select
> >the
> >> >subjects. They maintain and interpret the data. They select which
> >parts
> >> >get published. They choose who will become the reviewers in the
> >> >prestigious medical journals. And they pick 'key opinion
leaders,'
> >who
> >> >they pay handsomely" to promote the drugs. "It's perfect," she
> >> >concludes. "They have it made."
> >>
> >> Better question: What's Ailing PeterB? Since he's posting an
article
> >> about pharmaceutical companies on m.h.a, even though the article
had
> >> nothing to do with alt med.
> >
> >Why David, how good of you to drop in! My thinking is that without
a
> >full appreciation for pharmaceuticals, one might never fully
appreciate
> >the alternatives. Fair enough?
>
> Quite a stretch, actually. You're a hair's breadth away from the
> demented Drew, who feels that *any* health topic is appropriate for
> m.h.a. Your approach would make m.h.a a superset of, say,
> sci.med.pharmacy.

It never helps to avoid issues affecting public health and an article
such as this is most appropriately found in an alt-med forum. While
the supplements industry is not perfect, the pharma bloggers have to
realize that their battle is about noise, not facts.

Peter

..te..

David Wright wrote:
> In article <1115693760.636098.223000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups .com>,
> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >David Wright wrote:
> >> In article
<1115648968.377819.211910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
> >> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Excerpt:
> >> >
> >> >"The companies design the drug trials," Sharav says. "They select
> >the
> >> >subjects. They maintain and interpret the data. They select which
> >parts
> >> >get published. They choose who will become the reviewers in the
> >> >prestigious medical journals. And they pick 'key opinion
leaders,'
> >who
> >> >they pay handsomely" to promote the drugs. "It's perfect," she
> >> >concludes. "They have it made."
> >>
> >> Better question: What's Ailing PeterB? Since he's posting an
article
> >> about pharmaceutical companies on m.h.a, even though the article
had
> >> nothing to do with alt med.
> >
> >Why David, how good of you to drop in! My thinking is that without
a
> >full appreciation for pharmaceuticals, one might never fully
appreciate
> >the alternatives. Fair enough?
>
> Quite a stretch, actually. You're a hair's breadth away from the
> demented Drew, who feels that *any* health topic is appropriate for
> m.h.a. Your approach would make m.h.a a superset of, say,
> sci.med.pharmacy.

It never helps to avoid issues affecting public health and an article
such as this is most appropriately found in an alt-med forum. While
I agree the supplements industry is not perfect, the pharma bloggers
have to realize that their argument is about noise, not facts.

Peter