Latest Drugwonks' Blog
Why in the world would the Boston Globe run an op-ed by Lawrence Diller, whose unscientific views on ADHD and bi-polar disorder have now crystallized into an attack on Mass General's Joseph Biederman who, along with a handful of others, was able to steer child psychiatrists and pediatricians into an awareness of childhood manic depression. The Globe editorial accuses Biederman of being " morally culpable in providing the "science" that allowed Rebecca to die." Why not toss in dozens of others including CMPI board member Fred Goodwin who wrote the book on the treatment of bi-polar disorder, Herb Meltzer and others? I hear the black helicopters hovering in the background.
The Rebecca in question was given a fatal dose of clonodine by her parents. But Diller thinks it is the Biederman's fault. Why? Because he (and others) developed the standards " which include diagnosing preschool children as young as 2 with bipolar disorder and treating them with multiple medications."
How and why the Globe ran this cruel attack is beyond me. Biederman is a scholar and a caring, compassionate doctor. As for Diller's claim that of a "purported" diagnosis of bi-polar disorder, is there someone on the Globe editorial staff that is a closet Scientologist? Early onset bi-polar disorder has been clinicially documented, diagnosed and treated.
As the parent of a child who responded to the regimens developed by Biederman and others I can attest to it.
The Globe should be ashamed of itself for allowing it's reputation to be tarnished in this manner. As for Diller, he is beneath contempt and not worthy of further mention.
The Rebecca in question was given a fatal dose of clonodine by her parents. But Diller thinks it is the Biederman's fault. Why? Because he (and others) developed the standards " which include diagnosing preschool children as young as 2 with bipolar disorder and treating them with multiple medications."
How and why the Globe ran this cruel attack is beyond me. Biederman is a scholar and a caring, compassionate doctor. As for Diller's claim that of a "purported" diagnosis of bi-polar disorder, is there someone on the Globe editorial staff that is a closet Scientologist? Early onset bi-polar disorder has been clinicially documented, diagnosed and treated.
As the parent of a child who responded to the regimens developed by Biederman and others I can attest to it.
The Globe should be ashamed of itself for allowing it's reputation to be tarnished in this manner. As for Diller, he is beneath contempt and not worthy of further mention.
Another example of how you get polls to say whatever you want based on how you phrase the question:
"Sixty-one percent of U.S. adults believe poorer countries should be allowed to break companies' patents on HIV/AIDS drugs if doing so would help them treat more of their population, according to a new poll.
When asked specifically about a recent move by Brazil to break the patent on an AIDS drug made by Merck & Co. and provide a generic version instead, 57% said they were in favor of the country's decision, while 20% said they were opposed, the Wall Street Journal Online/Harris Interactive health-care poll found."
Too bad people didn't know that Brazil spends more on their military than in on public health or more on their ag-bio programs than on their HIV programs.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118227672705940767-search.html?KEYWORDS=harris+interactive&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month
"Sixty-one percent of U.S. adults believe poorer countries should be allowed to break companies' patents on HIV/AIDS drugs if doing so would help them treat more of their population, according to a new poll.
When asked specifically about a recent move by Brazil to break the patent on an AIDS drug made by Merck & Co. and provide a generic version instead, 57% said they were in favor of the country's decision, while 20% said they were opposed, the Wall Street Journal Online/Harris Interactive health-care poll found."
Too bad people didn't know that Brazil spends more on their military than in on public health or more on their ag-bio programs than on their HIV programs.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118227672705940767-search.html?KEYWORDS=harris+interactive&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month
Sicko director Michael Moore (read that however you choose) spends a lot of his movie showing how well-heeled UK docs are and how the NHS actually gives people cash to take cab rides back from the hospital.
For mo(o)re examples of just how great health care in Britain can be ... if and when you can find it ... consider this article from the Times of London:
SECRET NHS PLAN TO RATION PATIENT CARE
Read more here
For mo(o)re examples of just how great health care in Britain can be ... if and when you can find it ... consider this article from the Times of London:
SECRET NHS PLAN TO RATION PATIENT CARE
Read more here
What do you call it when science makes a real medical breakthrough -- one that can save lives and money -- but insurance companies refuse to pay for it.
In this case, you can call it "Wednesday."
Here's the story as reported by the AP ...
A new study suggests thousands of young women with breast cancer — an estimated 8,000 a year in the United States — are not offered testing to identify faulty genes and clarify their medical decisions.
Guidelines used by insurance companies to decide coverage for genetic testing should change to reflect the findings, said an author of the study, Dr. Jeffrey N. Weitzel of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif. Testing can cost more than $3,000.
Here's the complete story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/health/20cancer.html?adxnnl=1&adnnlx=1182360649-+Sn64+pi/6oXjTGlb3il5g
And for those who are calling for "comparative effectiveness" or "evidence-based medicine," or healthcare technology assessment" consider this -- isn't a genetic test that gets the right treatment to the right patient as early as possible the best way to lower costs and improve outcomes?
But that would require long-term thinking.
Why isn't Mr. Waxman calling a hearing on this?
(Do more women have to die of breast cancer than died on 9-11 for him to be interested.)
In this case, you can call it "Wednesday."
Here's the story as reported by the AP ...
A new study suggests thousands of young women with breast cancer — an estimated 8,000 a year in the United States — are not offered testing to identify faulty genes and clarify their medical decisions.
Guidelines used by insurance companies to decide coverage for genetic testing should change to reflect the findings, said an author of the study, Dr. Jeffrey N. Weitzel of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif. Testing can cost more than $3,000.
Here's the complete story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/health/20cancer.html?adxnnl=1&adnnlx=1182360649-+Sn64+pi/6oXjTGlb3il5g
And for those who are calling for "comparative effectiveness" or "evidence-based medicine," or healthcare technology assessment" consider this -- isn't a genetic test that gets the right treatment to the right patient as early as possible the best way to lower costs and improve outcomes?
But that would require long-term thinking.
Why isn't Mr. Waxman calling a hearing on this?
(Do more women have to die of breast cancer than died on 9-11 for him to be interested.)
We've never understood the theory behind a time-specific ban on advertising for newly approved medicines -- because we've never understood how less information makes any medicine safer.
So we're glad that such clearly political moves were resoundingly defeated in yesterday's Energy and Commerce mark-up. Bad for partisan politicians. Good for the public health.
According to Reuters, "Legislation meant to improve the government's drug safety oversight cleared a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on Tuesday without a controversial limit on television advertisements. Lawmakers removed language that would have allowed the health secretary to ban TV commercials for a new drug for up to three years if necessary to protect the public health.
Instead, members voted 23-9 to give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration power to fine companies $250,000 for running a false or misleading advertisement aimed at consumers.
Backers of that approach, written by New York Democratic Rep. Edolphus Towns, said an advertising ban would have violated constitutional protections of free speech.
I don't like the drug ads on television late at night .... They bug me. But I also recognize that sometimes things that bug me are protected under the Constitution, said Rep. Heather Wilson, a New Mexico Republican"
Ah, sanity.
So we're glad that such clearly political moves were resoundingly defeated in yesterday's Energy and Commerce mark-up. Bad for partisan politicians. Good for the public health.
According to Reuters, "Legislation meant to improve the government's drug safety oversight cleared a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on Tuesday without a controversial limit on television advertisements. Lawmakers removed language that would have allowed the health secretary to ban TV commercials for a new drug for up to three years if necessary to protect the public health.
Instead, members voted 23-9 to give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration power to fine companies $250,000 for running a false or misleading advertisement aimed at consumers.
Backers of that approach, written by New York Democratic Rep. Edolphus Towns, said an advertising ban would have violated constitutional protections of free speech.
I don't like the drug ads on television late at night .... They bug me. But I also recognize that sometimes things that bug me are protected under the Constitution, said Rep. Heather Wilson, a New Mexico Republican"
Ah, sanity.
As reported by the Associated Press, a group made up of U.S. chief executives, labor unions and other business organizations on Monday called on companies to stop providing quarterly earnings guidance to Wall Street.
The coalition, led by the non-profit Aspen Institute, contends that hedge funds are using earnings guidance as a way to turn a quick profit. Earnings projections were originally intended to give long-term investors a snapshot of the company's health, and not as a tool for short-term buying or selling, according to the coalition. The initiative - called "The Aspen Principles" - has been supported by the AFL-CIO, the largest union federation, and companies like PepsiCo Inc. and Pfizer Inc.
Companies have been accused of being so caught up in quarterly numbers, that they neglect the long term. And, those that miss their guided earnings are often punished by Wall Street - with investors, especially hedge funds, making money on the share prices' swings.
Here’s a link to the full story:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/06/18/ap3832602.html
Amen. When “long-term thinking†means the end of the quarter rather than the end of the quarter century more important things than investments suffer – things like the public health suffer.
The coalition, led by the non-profit Aspen Institute, contends that hedge funds are using earnings guidance as a way to turn a quick profit. Earnings projections were originally intended to give long-term investors a snapshot of the company's health, and not as a tool for short-term buying or selling, according to the coalition. The initiative - called "The Aspen Principles" - has been supported by the AFL-CIO, the largest union federation, and companies like PepsiCo Inc. and Pfizer Inc.
Companies have been accused of being so caught up in quarterly numbers, that they neglect the long term. And, those that miss their guided earnings are often punished by Wall Street - with investors, especially hedge funds, making money on the share prices' swings.
Here’s a link to the full story:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/06/18/ap3832602.html
Amen. When “long-term thinking†means the end of the quarter rather than the end of the quarter century more important things than investments suffer – things like the public health suffer.
CongressNow reports that,
“House Democrats relented and removed two of the most controversial provisions from pending Food and Drug Administration legislation, withdrawing language overturning federal preemption and a requirement for mandatory post-market reviews, Congressional and other sources say.â€
According to an aide to Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), the preemption language and a provision for mandatory risk evaluation and mitigation strategies “have been dropped.â€
More as more develops.
“House Democrats relented and removed two of the most controversial provisions from pending Food and Drug Administration legislation, withdrawing language overturning federal preemption and a requirement for mandatory post-market reviews, Congressional and other sources say.â€
According to an aide to Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), the preemption language and a provision for mandatory risk evaluation and mitigation strategies “have been dropped.â€
More as more develops.
Lead graph from a post by Trevor Butterworth on The Huffington Post:
Among the many febrile statements that followed the publication of a study in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) contending that a diabetes pill carried an unacceptable risk of heart attack, one comment stood out, not so much for the scale of prognostication (deaths from Avandia may "dwarf 9/11," said study author Dr. Steven Nissen on ABC), or the degree of vitriol over the way drugs are regulated in the U.S., but because it managed the remarkable feat of sounding both stupifyingly naive and disingenuous at the same time. "We are a scholarly journal, not a news outlet," NEJM executive editor Gregory Curfman told BioCentury, a publication covering the drugs industry. 'What happens in the media is beyond our control."
The full post can be found at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trevor-butterworth/medical-journal-malpracti_b_52677.html
"Febrile." Great Scrabble word.
Among the many febrile statements that followed the publication of a study in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) contending that a diabetes pill carried an unacceptable risk of heart attack, one comment stood out, not so much for the scale of prognostication (deaths from Avandia may "dwarf 9/11," said study author Dr. Steven Nissen on ABC), or the degree of vitriol over the way drugs are regulated in the U.S., but because it managed the remarkable feat of sounding both stupifyingly naive and disingenuous at the same time. "We are a scholarly journal, not a news outlet," NEJM executive editor Gregory Curfman told BioCentury, a publication covering the drugs industry. 'What happens in the media is beyond our control."
The full post can be found at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trevor-butterworth/medical-journal-malpracti_b_52677.html
"Febrile." Great Scrabble word.
No, not Thomas the Tank Engine.
The toxic train referred to herein is the one leaving the station on comparative effectiveness.
Or as Jill Wechsler of Pharmaceutical Executive writes, "The comparative-research bandwagon is gathering steam in Washington health-policy circles."
Except that a bandwagon doesn't "gather steam" -- it gathers hangers-on.
But choose your metaphor, it's a free country.
Gathering steam? Perhaps. Generating a lot of hot air? Definitely.
Two sample paragraphs to whet your interest:
"The danger is, of course, that effectiveness studies could be used to limit coverage and treatment options to low-cost products. And additional research requirements for sponsors could be costly. Prospective studies cost hundreds of millions of dollars and are vastly different from relatively low-cost retrospective data reviews, points out health economist Bryan Luce of United BioSource at a March seminar on comparative-effectiveness research sponsored by the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest."
"Variations in patient response to treatments and the desire to link provider payments to quality measures speak to the need for more valid comparative healthcare information."
Here's a link to the article:
http://www.pharmexec.com/pharmexec/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=429153
Comparative Effectiveness. The wrong train leaving the station in the wrong direction.
The toxic train referred to herein is the one leaving the station on comparative effectiveness.
Or as Jill Wechsler of Pharmaceutical Executive writes, "The comparative-research bandwagon is gathering steam in Washington health-policy circles."
Except that a bandwagon doesn't "gather steam" -- it gathers hangers-on.
But choose your metaphor, it's a free country.
Gathering steam? Perhaps. Generating a lot of hot air? Definitely.
Two sample paragraphs to whet your interest:
"The danger is, of course, that effectiveness studies could be used to limit coverage and treatment options to low-cost products. And additional research requirements for sponsors could be costly. Prospective studies cost hundreds of millions of dollars and are vastly different from relatively low-cost retrospective data reviews, points out health economist Bryan Luce of United BioSource at a March seminar on comparative-effectiveness research sponsored by the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest."
"Variations in patient response to treatments and the desire to link provider payments to quality measures speak to the need for more valid comparative healthcare information."
Here's a link to the article:
http://www.pharmexec.com/pharmexec/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=429153
Comparative Effectiveness. The wrong train leaving the station in the wrong direction.
Not much in "Sicko," Moore's film advocating "free" universal health care for America. Rather, he spends a few minutes claiming that drug companies -- because Billy Tauzin wound up becoming head of PhRMA -- got the government to spend $800 billion on a new drug entitlement. Yawn. (PS/ He doesn't mention that Part D works and that seniors love it.)
In fact, there is not much of anything new in the movie as a whole. If you are a Moore loyalist you will rave how great it is. But mainly Moore recycles tired old arguments for national health care, abeit with more charm, humor and poignancy than most leftists can ever muster even when high. And Moore's fact and anecdotes are mostly incorrect, outdated and easily rebutted -- something we will take pleasure in doing here.
Does this mean that health care shouldn't more affordable or available or that 9-11 workers shouldn't have been given comprehensive care immediately? Of course not. But there are tradeoffs too. Moore keeps referring to "free" universal health care. Health care is neither free nor universal in the UK, Canada or France. But on the whole our system provides better care for more conditions with less rationing and about the same out of pocket spending (yes, folks) than all others.
In fact, there is not much of anything new in the movie as a whole. If you are a Moore loyalist you will rave how great it is. But mainly Moore recycles tired old arguments for national health care, abeit with more charm, humor and poignancy than most leftists can ever muster even when high. And Moore's fact and anecdotes are mostly incorrect, outdated and easily rebutted -- something we will take pleasure in doing here.
Does this mean that health care shouldn't more affordable or available or that 9-11 workers shouldn't have been given comprehensive care immediately? Of course not. But there are tradeoffs too. Moore keeps referring to "free" universal health care. Health care is neither free nor universal in the UK, Canada or France. But on the whole our system provides better care for more conditions with less rationing and about the same out of pocket spending (yes, folks) than all others.
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.
