Skip to Content

Category: pharma

On Science Blogs reviews a couple of Supreme Court decisions related to medicine, and Tabitha M. Powledge likes what she sees.

Pharmaceutical companies can no longer collude with generic drug makers to keep cheaper...

On Science Blogs reviews a couple of Supreme Court decisions related to medicine, and Tabitha M. Powledge likes what she sees.

Pharmaceutical companies can no longer collude with generic drug makers to keep cheaper generics off the market. (One wonders why we needed the Supreme Court to tell us that this was a very bad idea for all except pharma shareholders.)

And private health organizations no longer are required to denounce prostitution in order to get funding for program to prevent or treat HIV/AIDS. Powledge jabs i09 for giving the Supreme Court more credit than it deserves. The court, she writes, managed to decide this without considering the public health issues, which makes for stirring jurisprudence.

-Paul Raeburn...

In a study published yesterday in PLOS Medicine, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health compared internal Pfizer documents to published studies on the drug Neurontin and found that "trial...

In a study published yesterday in PLOS Medicine, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health compared internal Pfizer documents to published studies on the drug Neurontin and found that "trial publication was not a transparent, or accurate...record for the numbers of participants randomized and analyzed for efficacy." In one case, "the description in the publication did not include data from 40% of participants actually randomized in the trial."

It's not the first time we've heard that drug-company sponsored studies might be suspect, but this study advances the story. And it was made possible only because of the unusual circumstance that the internal Pfizer documents became available through litigation. 

The study was promoted in...

Two weeks ago, I posted...

Two weeks ago, I posted an item calling out Ezekiel Emanuel, the noted oncologist, biologist, and former White House adviser, for an Op-Ed he wrote in The New York Times. I said the story, about a pressing shortage of cancer drugs, was poorly done. And I arrogantly noted that almost any journeyman science writer, with far less credentials and public esteem than Emanuel, could do a better job. "Never send a man to do a journalist's job," I wrote.

Now, it's time to do a little ground-truthing on that. A number of science...