Latest Drugwonks' Blog

Dr. Emily Gibson has written an excellent piece explaining the obstacles she has faced in persuading parents to have their children vaccinated:

As a physician, I help enforce vaccination requirements for a state university.  A day doesn’t go by without my having a discussion with a prospective student (or more likely the student’s parent) about the necessity for our requirement for proof of  mumps, measles, rubella vaccination immunity.  I have been labeled a Nazi, a Communist, a pawn of the pharmaceutical industry and many more unprintable names because I happen to believe in the efficacy of modern vaccine to help keep a community free of infectious disease outbreaks that will kill people.

We have forgotten these are honest to goodness killers of healthy human beings.  We forget that unvaccinated children continue to die in developing countries for lack of access to vaccine.   Yet educated and well-meaning American parents make the decision daily to leave their children unvaccinated, believing they are doing the best thing for their children by protecting them from potentially rare and often unproven vaccine side effects.

I’ve had caring loving parents tell me that God will provide the needed immunity if their child gets sick so taking the risk of a vaccine is unnecessary.    Actually they are banking that everyone else will be vaccinated.  The problem is:  guess again.  There are now too many deciding that they are the ones who can remain vaccine-free.   Babies died in California this past year from becoming infected with whooping cough–in the year 2010– when this is a completely preventable illness.

I tell these parents God does provide immunity — after suffering through a life threatening disease which threatens those who are unfortunately exposed.  He also provides immunity in the form of a vial of vaccine, a needle and syringe.  I don’t think any one of these parents would deny the life saving miracle of injectable insulin for their child diagnosed with diabetes, nor would they fail to strap their child into a car seat.  Vaccines are miracles and instruments of prevention too, but the rub is that we have to give them to healthy youngsters in order to keep them healthy.

As a society, or as clinicians, we simply don’t think about immunizations in the same way as we did in the fifties.  When I received my first DPT vaccination at the age of 4 months, my mother wrote in my baby book:

“Up most of the night with fever 104.5 degrees, considered a good ‘take’ for the vaccine.”  She truly was relieved that it had made me sick, as it meant that I would be safe if exposed to those killer diseases that were so common in the 1950s.  Now a febrile reaction like that would almost be considered grounds for a law suit.

Read the full piece here.
 

Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) is still harping on one of the few positive provisions in the Affordable Care Act: The 12-yr exclusivity time for biosimilars.
 
Waxman said this week that he is still working to change this aspect of the law, “I hope we can change that provision and we’ll do the best that we can.”
 
His reasoning?
 
“I think the existing law is a real barrier to consumers holding down the costs.”
 
Now that Congressman Waxman is no longer Chairman of the Energy & Commerce Committee, perhaps he has some time to watch the video of CMPI’s Capitol Hill briefing a couple years ago on this issue. Both Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) discussed the importance of the 12-yr exclusivity for biosimilars.
 
See video here and here.

Quotes of the week

  • 03.25.2011
“Happy first anniversary, ObamaCare. May you not survive long enough to see your second.”
 
- Editors, Las Vegas Review-Journal
 
"When Senator Barack Obama was running for president, he repeatedly promised that he was going to reduce 'every family's premiums by as much as $2,500.' ... Average premiums for individual plans, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, are predicted to increase by $2,100 per family over the next five years under the law."
 
- Senator John Thune (R-SD)
 
"If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states."
 
- Mitt Romney

www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20110324_A_losing_battle_against_disease_and_ignorance.html

PEDRO MOLINA
 
PEDRO MOLINA
READER FEEDBACK



A losing battle against disease and ignorance

The government surrenders to anti-vaccine zealots.

By Robert Goldberg

Last month, a 27-year-old woman with a case of measles she picked up in London exposed hundreds as she flew into the Washington area and then on to Denver and Albuquerque, N.M. She had never been vaccinated for the disease.

The woman who spread the measles isn't an outlier. Rather, she's the product of a zealous and largely unchecked movement to convince parents that vaccinations can harm their children.

"Virtually every single empirical claim of vaccine rejectionism is factually false," notes Dr. Amy Tuteur, an obstetrician-gynecologist and blogger, "but parents who lack even the most basic understanding of immunology are often incapable of evaluating those empirical claims. Indeed, those parents most likely to proclaim themselves 'educated' on the topic are generally the most ignorant."

But many parents - most of them white, affluent mothers - believe otherwise, and not by accident. Making vaccines sound scarier than measles and the other infectious diseases they prevent took a village of anti-vaccine organizations fomenting fear.

One prominent proponent of the idea that vaccines cause autism and brain damage is Andrew Wakefield, who began using the Web and other media to promote his "research" on the subject in the 1990s. Wakefield's findings were discredited, but not before they sparked a growing anti-vaccination movement. Its members theorize that the government, the pharmaceutical industry, and the medical community have conspired to hide the dangers of vaccines in an effort to protect corporate profits.

The media have been part of the problem. Rather than exposing fraudulent claims, sympathetic reporters have fueled anti-vaccine groups, spread panic, and crowned celebrities such as Jenny McCarthy as immunization experts. Meanwhile, they have depicted true leaders in the field, such as Dr. Paul Offit of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, as less reliable because of their connections to commercially successful vaccines.

As they plug their books, diets, and supplements, McCarthy and others have flogged the message that the best defenses against childhood disease are conspicuously "natural" - including prolonged breast-feeding and exposure to other sick children at measles and chicken pox "parties." That's right: The supposedly enlightened anti-vaccine parent protects her kids by exposing them to diseases that have killed millions.

It would be nice if our public officials stood up to these fearmongers instead of treating them as just another interest group. But apparently that's too much to ask of the Obama administration, which seems to have gone out of its way to legitimize the belief that vaccines cause autism.

In 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices postponed the release of the swine-flu vaccine because of safety concerns raised by McCarthy's group, Generation Rescue. Now the CDC committee - which makes far-reaching recommendations about what vaccinations America's children should receive - appears to be backing away from a lifesaving infant vaccine to prevent meningococcal disease, a leading cause of bacterial meningitis.

That's despite the fact that in 1999, meningococcal disease was on the CDC's list of 10 conditions targeted for elimination. And the CDC voiced its support for an infant meningococcal vaccine in 2008, citing data that demonstrated its safety and potential to greatly reduce harm caused by the disease.

Last year, however, Obama's CDC showed signs of backing down from that position. The immunization committee indicated that it might not recommend the vaccine for infants. Among the reasons it cited was the potential for a "rare adverse event."

Last month, the Obama administration released its long-awaited National Vaccine Plan, which devoted a lot of attention to overcoming cultural and economic barriers to immunization. But it didn't include a word about bogus claims that vaccines are dangerous. And then Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson joined the panic parade by suggesting that contaminated drinking water causes autism.

Wakefield helped launch a powerful movement against immunizations. Sadly, the Obama administration has been unable or unwilling to generate a strong provaccine response.

If measles and other diseases continue to surge, we can't just blame those who spread them. We can also thank the politicians and health officials who fail to protect us from deadly diseases and lethal stupidity.

 


Dr. Robert Goldberg is vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and the author of "Tabloid Medicine: How the Internet is Being Used to Hijack Medical Science for Fear and Profit" (Kaplan, 2010). He can be reached at robert.goldberg@cmpi.org.

The big news in Moscow this morning is that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev hosted the band Deep Purple (according to the official Kremlin report), “at his luxurious residence near Moscow.”

Soldier of Fortune
indeed.  Rock on Dmitry!


Perhaps the reason the Kremlin chose to comment on President Medvedev getting in touch with his internal groupie was to send the message that Russia (from the top down) is more Western than we in the West give it credit for. The news item on Deep Purple, after all, wasn’t in the mainstream Russian press but rather in the English language Moscow Times.

Fascination with rock stars notwithstanding, Russia is not the West. But neither is it dancing bears and balalaikas. It’s Russia.  And in 2011 that’s a complicated proposition -- even more so when it comes to healthcare issues.

One of the major problems is that its regulatory framework is still quite nascent. With senior government officials entering and departing public service at an alarming pace (and rarely of their own volition), there is a lack of continuity and predictability that makes working with the FDA look like predicting the tides.

Case in point is the Russian government’s recent decision to demand that, prior to licensing any new medicine, the sponsor company must conduct clinical trials in the Rodina. Nobody’s clear whether that means Phase III trials (which is probably the case), but the practical reality is that this edict prevents over 400 new medicines (both NMEs and dosage forms) from being introduced onto the market.

Is the government concerned about safety?  If so, what new safety information will additional clinical trials provide?  How large must these Russia-only trials be?  The government edict is unclear and nobody inside the Kremlin is willing to clarify. My sources tell me that multinational pharma wants to talk and wants to do the right thing – if they could only find someone to talk to and negotiate with.  Can this new regulation be prospective – allowing the pending drugs (that are all currently on the market in both the US and the EU) be given the green light and then have all future drugs incorporate domestic trials? Seems fair and logical – but there’s no one to sit in the chair opposite industry to discuss it.  Can a panel of Russian experts be asked to review the clinical trial results of these 400 pending products and offer their expert opinion as to their design and findings? That would be a good conversation – except that there’s no one to have the conversation with.

Everybody's shuffling on keeping a place in the line
Don't you think we're gonna make it
We've got a place in line
We're gonna make it some time
Somehow


From the Deep Purple song, Place in Line.

It’s also important to understand wither this new proto-regulation came from – it came directly from Vladimir Putin.  Nobody knows if the Russian Prime Minister is a Deep Purple aficionado, but no one has ever accused him of being a creature of the West.  His preferred methods and recent public remarks certainly do not reflect such attitudes. At the one meeting where representatives of the international pharmaceutical industry were able to discuss the clinical trial issue, the senior government official present said that industry “had made some good points.”

 

And the next day he was fired.  So much for constructive dialogue.

 

As Joseph Stalin commented after a particularly brutal purge, “Life is more joyous, comrades.” Translation – you could be next, so watch your step.

 

At dinner with a senior member of the Russian healthcare firmament, I was told that the most significant advance Russia has made in adopting a more science-based regulatory standard was that there are now “reasonable bureaucrats.” When I asked what that meant he responded, “It means people who have been in their jobs for more than five years.” Something to think about for FDA watchers who complain that too many people at the agency have been in their jobs for too long.  Be careful what you wish for.

 

One of the things the Russian government is wishing for is a more developed and robust domestic pharmaceutical industry.  To this end they developed a plan called “Pharma 2020” – except that it was developed without any real input from industry.  In other words, with (to be polite) limited expertise in this area, the government put a plan in place that prioritizes domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing over research and development.  Central planning of this sort proved less than successful when it came to tractors, it will be a disaster when it comes to sowing successful seeds for it’s own domestic “большая фармацевтическая продукция” (Big Pharma). The future for Russia is too important for it’s biotech future to be a gulag archipelago.

 

Industry was ignored – but why did they wait to be asked? Why didn’t all of the smart and savvy representatives of multinational Big Pharma sit down and design a model program and then share it with the government?  This time, alas, the problem cannot be blamed on the Kremlin’s lack of access.  Rather the problem is that there is no real industry body akin to PhRMA in Russia.  Best estimates are that, for all non-sales activities inside Russia, all the mutinational pharmaceutical companies spend under three million dollars combined.

 

For a nation with the potential of Russia and considering how much verbiage is regularly directed at the importance of this market, this is not a serious number. When it comes to Russia, industry efforts have not been nearly, um, Gudunov.

 

Stepping outside of Russia, the story, relative to international pharmaceutical industry engagement is just as bad if not worse. In Egypt, for example, last year non-sales spending was about $40,000 for the industry. Yes, combined.

 

Clearly there needs to be much better focus on organic chemistry.

 

In Russia and elsewhere, if industry wants to reinvent the process, they must actively and aggressively become a more important part of the process.  Current lack of funding for such efforts does not match up with the rhetoric of true globalization.

 

Feel it coming
It's knocking at the door
You know it's no good running
It's not against the law
The point of no return
And now you know the score
And now you're learning
What's knockin' at your back door

 

From the Deep Purple song, Knocking on Your Back Door.

 

Please pass the kvass.

  •  
Paul Offit at the NYAS!
  • Vaccines Under the Gun: Politics, Science, Media and the Law

    Monday, March 28, 2011 | 1:00 PM - 5:00 PM
    The New York Academy of Sciences

    Presented by the Vaccine Science Discussion Group

    Recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases (measles, 2008; mumps, 2009, meningitis, 2009; pertussis, 2010) have shown that as more children remain unvaccinated, community immunity has broken down. Several recent legal cases (CHOP vs Health Care Workers Union 1199, AFL-CIO; Bruesewitz vs Wyeth) have underlined the battle between the rights of the individual vs. the good of society. This half-day symposium examines historical approaches to vaccination, the evolution and use of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, community-wide and personal safety considerations, social implications of these decisions, and the impact of recent arbitration, in this fast-evolving field, from a scientific, legal and social perspective.

    Networking reception to follow.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/23/an-obamacare-anniversary-bridg

The Right Prescription

An Obamacare Anniversary Bridge

Last week Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote an op-ed on the first anniversary of the ramming through -- I mean passage -- of Obamacare, proclaiming "Everyone prospers under health law." Unfortunately it appears that the real and immediate benefits only flow to those who play ball with unconfirmed Medicare/Medicaid administrator Donald Berwick to enact Obamacare before the 2012 election.

In that article Sebelius claims: "Just 12 months after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act became law, the American people are enjoying new protections, greater freedoms and lower costs."

Did anyone else miss all that, because I sure did. The new protections -- as we have heard ten million times from Obamacare supporters -- is that kids can stay on their parents' plans until they are 26 and no one can be dumped for pre-existing conditions. These are generally agreed to be good changes. But most adult children in America are already covered under existing state laws. That leaves less than 1 million people. As for pre-existing conditions? Queen Katherine claimed 129 million would be protected because that's how many people have pre-existing conditions (ranging from cancer to dandruff).

The real number? Closer to 650,000 according to House Democrats. Meanwhile only 280,000 people have signed up for coverage in federally funded insurance plans run by states for people with pre-existing conditions. The Grande Dame of HHS claimed 4-6 million Americans would prosper under this plan.

Sebelius claims "insurers are being held accountable for the way they spend consumer premiums. New rules require insurers to pay out 80 percent to 85 percent of premium dollars on health care and quality improvement efforts -- rather than marketing and executive bonuses."

The accountability is certainly there. It's just that the new rules have been -- what's the word -- waived so that millions of Americans won't lose coverage. And it's not just companies and unions seeking such "accountability." Maine got an exemption because Queen Kathy determined "the new federal spending requirement could hurt Maine's health insurance market." Now several other states with less than a dozen health insurers are following suit.

Halfway through her editorial, Sebelius exhausts her list of earth-shaking benefits (a new interactive website!) and looks into the future:

A family of four, making $55,000, could save more than $6,000 a year on health insurance in 2014. For a family making $33,000, those savings will be nearly $10,000 annually. For many American families, this means that health insurance will be within reach for the first time.

Not really. Only people who get a subsidy will see "savings" relative to the cost of insurance under Obamacare. That's about 7 percent of Americans -- about 13 million individuals, families, and single parents, many of whom already have insurance. Much of the subsidy goes to sicker and older people with the same income as healthier and younger heads of households. And as Keith Hennessey observes, 8 million Americans who make more than $44,000 a year would have to pay higher taxes, higher premiums, and receive no subsidy.

Which means that "within reach" boils down to pushing most of the uninsured into Medicaid. Sebelius promises she is willing to work with anyone to improve the law and fix what needs fixing, especially to control government spending on health care. But not when it comes to Medicaid. Many governors have asked the administration for a fixed amount of money for Medicaid in exchange for more of the "freedom" flowing like a mighty river under Obamacare. Instead, with months to go before he is forced to resign, Donald Berwick is working hard to expand Medicaid and he's spending money to do it.

Berwick won't say why money-saving block grants are off the table. Chances are he will be no more transparent about the deal he cut with California to fund its "Bridges to Reform" waiver (not to be confused with the "towering bridge" Berwick adores, otherwise known as the British health system). The waiver allows California to add 2 million people to the Medicaid program before 2014 -- and just in time for the 2012 presidential election.

Under this waiver, California gets an additional $10 billion over five years. Of that amount, $3.8 billion goes to hospitals under something called the Delivery System Reform Incentive Pool (longhand for slush fund). Another $3.3 billion goes to California' s uncompensated care fund (something that was supposed to disappear under Obamacare). Medicaid waivers are not supposed to add to federal Medicaid spending. But in this case, funding to expand coverage under the California waiver is uncapped.

Berwick will be sticking around long enough to turn on that federal spigot in addition to the $10 billion California gets for being first. Before he leaves it might be interesting to ask him and his soon-to-be ex-boss if Bridges to Reform -- an outright bribe on the order of the Cornhusker Kickback -- is an example of the kind of "anniversary gifts" Americans can expect under Obamacare.

Comrades!

 

I come to you live from the sixth annual Moscow International Congress on Biotechnology, where I have just given my presentation titled, “Biosimilars:  Safety or Savings?”

 

Here is a sampler:

 

The age of the blockbuster is over. Cost concerns are more challenging than ever. And we are struggling with what “personalized medicine” really means.

 

We are now in the era of post-patent medicine where advances in manufacturing and molecular diagnostics are as important as new molecular entities, and safety is as important (and as improvable) as efficacy.

 

The era of post-patent medicine is also the epoch of biosimilars.  But will biosimilars really be as important an element of change as many believe.  Will it be, as we like to say in the United States, a game changer?

 

I believe the answer is “yes,” but I am not sure whether or not all the changes will positively affect the advancement of the public health.  I fear the expectations that biosimilars will radically reduce costs are overstated. I fear that safety concerns are being understated and that the risks to innovation are real.

 

As Eli Lilly & Co. CEO John Leichleiter said, "Creating and maintaining the conditions for innovation to flourish is challenging and complicated work - work that is never finished.”

 

What is the place for Russia in all this?  Russia will certainly offer an attractive market for biosimilars and biobetters.   With millions of people, and tremendous unmet medical need, we can expect the uptake of quality biosimilar and biobetter products to be substantial, particularly if those products are available at a substantial cost savings, or offer additional therapeutic benefits.

 

But beyond the market potential, what about the role of Russia as a center for biosimilar and biobetter research and manufacture? 

 

I believe that Russia’s strong tradition in science and medicine offers a platform to both develop and produce these medicines – and potentially not only for its domestic market, but also for export.

 

Such a proposition is not without risks and it will be a complicated decision depending on a variety of local factors. One critical element will be an evolving regulatory framework.

 

To protect the health and safety of Russian patients and, moreover, if Russia hopes to export these medicines, a 21st century, state of the art, internationally recognized and harmonized regulatory system will be a fundamental requirement. 

 

No patient, whether in the USA, Europe or Russia, should be exposed to low quality, unreliable biosimilars or unproven biobetters. And no payor -- whether private or government -- should spend one kopek on uncertain products.

 

I understand that the Russian Health Ministry is looking at revising Russia’s biosimilar regulations to meet the highest international standards and I can think of few things that would be more in the interest of Russian patients or more firmly guarantee Russia’s investments and economic aspirations in this area.

 

Simply put, a good regulatory system is good for the public health and good for business.

 

There’s much more to share from my mission to Moscow (which runs through the end of this week). Stay tuned as I delve further into the state of healthcare in Russia – truly a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

Philip Stevens, CMPI Senior Fellow, responds to an Oxfam report on dealing with the growing problem of counterfeit drugs in developing countries:

Oxfam's trademark confusion
Philip Stevens
10-Feb-2011
 
Counterfeit and substandard medicines in developing countries are becoming a critical problem. A report released by Oxfam earlier this month(1) claims to have the answers: stop treating fake medicines as an intellectual property problem, and do whatever it takes to bolster local regulation. Oxfam's diagnosis is only half-correct.  Unfortunately, the same can't be said for its prescriptions. 

Oxfam's main beef with current approaches to the problem the conflation in certain pieces of legislation of intellectual property issues such as patents with trademarks. Exhibit A is Kenya's 2008 Anti Counterfeiting Act, which was designed to protect Kenyan citizens from the increasingly ubiquitous counterfeit products that are flooding the local market, from fake tyres to dodgy toothbrushes. 

While such products are not without their dangers and economic costs, a more pressing concern is the staggering proportion of counterfeit and substandard medicines circulating in the country, which recent studies have put as high as 38 per cent(2).

Proponents of the 2008 Act hoped it would finally put a floor under the plummeting quality of the country's medicine supply; as most physicians know, medicines that contain therapeutically sub-optimal levels of active ingredient can promote drug resistance and lead to clinical failure. 

Oxfam's criticism of Kenya's anti counterfeiting bill is not without grounds: from a legal perspective, it is a badly drafted law that attempts to achieve too much.  The bill defines counterfeiting as an intellectual property breach of a protected good, which can include "the manufacture, production, packaging, re-packaging, labelling or making, whether in Kenya or elsewhere, of any goods whereby those protected goods are imitated in such manner and to such a degree that those other goods are identical or substantially similar copies of the protected goods."

In theory, this could outlaw well-made generic copies of drugs that are on-patent anywhere overseas.  Seeing that the vast majority of drug patents are not registered in developing countries like Kenya, this could suddenly reduce the range of generic medicines available to physicians, undermining competition while doing little to address drug quality.

Read the full article here.



The spread of fear in advance of an evaluation of measuable and observable events colors health and science policy.  It shapes what we fear and how we measure risk.  In a perfect world, government agencies would provide a corrective to simply confirming the fear de jour or reinforcing a false narrative and of what causes illness.

Not so.

The article by Trevor Butterworth (see below) demonstrates how a presidential panel to evaluate cancer risks tries to re-direct research away from predicting and controlling cancer through gene-based and individualized treatment to research that reconfirms claims that all cancer flows from "toxins" in the environment include BPA.  As Butterworth shows, what we fear is a collective and political choice that can run roughshod over facts.

www.thedaily.com/page/2011/03/21/032111-opinions-column-professors-butterworth-1-2/


The conflict over cancer

The best angle on the disease? Depends on whom you ask


“When I saw this new report,” said Sir Richard Peto, “I thought, ‘Poor President Obama, he deserves better advice.’” Peto is professor of medical statistics and epidemiology at the University of Oxford, and earned his knighthood for, among other achievements, calculating the incidence of cancer. The report in question was provided last April by the President’s Cancer Panel, an advisory body of experts which had concluded that the incidence of cancer caused by exposure to chemicals in the environment had been “grossly underestimated” by none other than Sir Richard Peto.


Even with its terrifying take-home message — a “come-hither” look to journalists if ever there was one — the Cancer Panel report sank faster than the Titanic, largely because the American Cancer Society agreed with Peto and ripped the panel for treating a shopworn hypothesis as a startling new fact. For all the bluster, the president’s would-be counselors couldn’t provide any statistical data to support their claims.


None of this has stopped the current issue of the New England Journal of Medicine from weighing in with a “perspective” piece on the whole affair by David Christiani, M.D., MPH, who holds positions at both Harvard’s School of Public Health (in the environmental health department) and at its medical school. Christiani disagrees with Peto and takes the report very seriously indeed, believing it warrants an entire rethink of America’s cancer prevention strategy, which — bottom line — means we should spend more researching the environmental causes of cancer.


Every dispute about our health is now a game of “Rock ’Em Sock ’Em Professors,” so let’s rate our fighters’ form:


Back in 1971, plain old Richard Peto joined Sir Richard Doll at Britain’s Medical Research Center, one of the world’s pre-eminent independent scientific institutions, where Doll had conclusively demonstrated a link between smoking and lung cancer. Both men went on to set up Oxford University’s Clinical Trials Unit, a research colossus for epidemiology and statistical analysis. In the early 1980s, they calculated the leading causes of avoidable cancers in the United States, estimating that occupational and environmental exposures accounted for just 4 to 6 percent of all cancer cases.


How good was Doll? He contributed a staggering amount to medicine, including fundamental work in assessing the risk from asbestos, radiation, and the benefits of taking aspirin to ward off heart attack.


How good was (and is) Peto? As Doll’s obituary in The British Journal of Cancer noted, “Although recognized as a good statistician himself, he placed great importance on working with the best available in the field.” Eugene Braunwald, Hersey professor of medicine at Harvard, who is widely considered the pre-eminent cardiologist of our time, has described Peto as “the best statistician in the universe.”


The genius of Doll, plus Peto squared to the power of Braunwald, is not a guarantee of truth, of course. But it presents a powerful warrant: The probability that their calculations on environmental cancer are wrong would have to be justified by, at the very least, a comparable deployment of statistical genius.


And this is where the President’s Cancer Panel simply didn’t bother showing up. Far from being “the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream,” as New York Times columnist Nick Kristoff claimed, it appeared to rely on those who peck in the molehills of conspiracy, including Devra Davis, author of “The Secret History of the War on Cancer,” which was pilloried in The Lancet by the director of the International Agency for Cancer Research, Peter Boyle: “with so many important factual inconsistencies in dealing with areas with which I have some familiarity, I start to have concerns about the factual accuracy in the areas I do not know so well.” (The panel, by the way, did not invite anyone from the International Agency on Cancer Research to participate in its meetings.)


It’s hard not to give the two Sir Richards victory by default. 


“The particular reasons they gave for dismissing our work were ridiculously incorrect,” said Peto, after I emailed him for his thoughts. “As far as I’m concerned, the only estimates I’d change much from what we wrote 30 years ago is that instead of attributing 30% of 1978 US cancer deaths to smoking, I’d attribute 33% of 2005 US cancer deaths to smoking, I’d approximately double the risk we attributed to ionizing radiation (to reflect the improved understanding of the hazards of domestic exposure to radon … and I’d be even more definite about the importance of chronic infection than we were in 1981.”


By establishing the leading causes of cancer, Doll and Peto have, in effect, guided the world’s research priorities and spending on cancer. It is little wonder, then, that those who want more money to research environmental causes have to contend with the problem that what they do just isn’t very important in the grand scheme of disease priorities. And not being important, at a time of government cutbacks in research, means less money, not more.
CMPI

Center for Medicine in the Public Interest is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization promoting innovative solutions that advance medical progress, reduce health disparities, extend life and make health care more affordable, preventive and patient-centered. CMPI also provides the public, policymakers and the media a reliable source of independent scientific analysis on issues ranging from personalized medicine, food and drug safety, health care reform and comparative effectiveness.

Blog Roll

Alliance for Patient Access Alternative Health Practice
AHRP
Better Health
BigGovHealth
Biotech Blog
BrandweekNRX
CA Medicine man
Cafe Pharma
Campaign for Modern Medicines
Carlat Psychiatry Blog
Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look
Conservative's Forum
Club For Growth
CNEhealth.org
Diabetes Mine
Disruptive Women
Doctors For Patient Care
Dr. Gov
Drug Channels
DTC Perspectives
eDrugSearch
Envisioning 2.0
EyeOnFDA
FDA Law Blog
Fierce Pharma
fightingdiseases.org
Fresh Air Fund
Furious Seasons
Gooznews
Gel Health News
Hands Off My Health
Health Business Blog
Health Care BS
Health Care for All
Healthy Skepticism
Hooked: Ethics, Medicine, and Pharma
Hugh Hewitt
IgniteBlog
In the Pipeline
In Vivo
Instapundit
Internet Drug News
Jaz'd Healthcare
Jaz'd Pharmaceutical Industry
Jim Edwards' NRx
Kaus Files
KevinMD
Laffer Health Care Report
Little Green Footballs
Med Buzz
Media Research Center
Medrants
More than Medicine
National Review
Neuroethics & Law
Newsbusters
Nurses For Reform
Nurses For Reform Blog
Opinion Journal
Orange Book
PAL
Peter Rost
Pharm Aid
Pharma Blog Review
Pharma Blogsphere
Pharma Marketing Blog
Pharmablogger
Pharmacology Corner
Pharmagossip
Pharmamotion
Pharmalot
Pharmaceutical Business Review
Piper Report
Polipundit
Powerline
Prescription for a Cure
Public Plan Facts
Quackwatch
Real Clear Politics
Remedyhealthcare
Shark Report
Shearlings Got Plowed
StateHouseCall.org
Taking Back America
Terra Sigillata
The Cycle
The Catalyst
The Lonely Conservative
TortsProf
Town Hall
Washington Monthly
World of DTC Marketing
WSJ Health Blog