DrugWonks on Twitter
Tweets by @PeterPittsDrugWonks on Facebook
CMPI Videos
Video Montage of Third Annual Odyssey Awards Gala Featuring Governor Mitch Daniels, Montel Williams, Dr. Paul Offit and CMPI president Peter Pitts
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels
Montel Williams, Emmy Award-Winning Talk Show Host
Paul Offit, M.D., Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and the Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, for Leadership in Transformational Medicine
CMPI president Peter J. Pitts
CMPI Web Video: "Science or Celebrity"
Tabloid Medicine
Check Out CMPI's Book
Physician Disempowerment:
A Transatlantic Malaise
Edited By: Peter J. Pitts
Download the E-Book Version Here
A Transatlantic Malaise
Edited By: Peter J. Pitts
Download the E-Book Version Here
CMPI Events
Donate
CMPI Reports
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
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
DrugWonks Blog
11/14/2007 06:01 AM |
On March 29th, CMPI and Old Dominion University sponsored a conference on evidence-based medicine and its implications for a cost-centric vs. patient-focused health care future.
Speakers included Carolyn Clancy (AHRQ), Gail Wilensky (Project Hope), Scott Gottlieb (AEI), John Bridges (Johns Hopkins), Peter Elkn (Mayo Clinic), among others.
Here is the final report on the event -- and it's really must reading for anyone concerned about the precarious balance between value and quality -- in short, the future of the American health care system.
Here's a link to the final report:
http://cmpi.org/archives/2007/11/improving_health_care_quality.php
Here's an enticing tidbit from the conclusion of the report ...
"We're not at the end of this debate. We're not at the beginning of the end of this debate. But we are at the end of the beginning where at least we can all agree that this is not, and must not be exclusively a debate about saving money. It must be about patient care."
An important read. Read More & Comment...
Speakers included Carolyn Clancy (AHRQ), Gail Wilensky (Project Hope), Scott Gottlieb (AEI), John Bridges (Johns Hopkins), Peter Elkn (Mayo Clinic), among others.
Here is the final report on the event -- and it's really must reading for anyone concerned about the precarious balance between value and quality -- in short, the future of the American health care system.
Here's a link to the final report:
http://cmpi.org/archives/2007/11/improving_health_care_quality.php
Here's an enticing tidbit from the conclusion of the report ...
"We're not at the end of this debate. We're not at the beginning of the end of this debate. But we are at the end of the beginning where at least we can all agree that this is not, and must not be exclusively a debate about saving money. It must be about patient care."
An important read. Read More & Comment...
11/13/2007 09:14 AM |
MRSA slowing spreading to the community. No drugs in the pipeline in large part to Congressman Waxman's jihad against using clinical trial designs that have brought HIV drugs to market to accelerate approval of medicines for MRSA that kill more people than HIV. Waxman's response? Read his sanctimonious speech on infectious disease control which essentially urges everyone to wash their hands.
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1606
Read this article on how Waxman's attack has helped kill investment and scared the FDA into inferior antibiotic drug approval rates.
http://www.morgenthaler.com/.../Ventures/Articles/ Read More & Comment...
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1606
Read this article on how Waxman's attack has helped kill investment and scared the FDA into inferior antibiotic drug approval rates.
http://www.morgenthaler.com/.../Ventures/Articles/ Read More & Comment...
11/13/2007 03:24 AM |
People who rob banks only steal money. And they only steal it once. But when intellectual property is stolen, the rip-off is ongoing -- and the results can be deadly.
Today, one of the biggest rip-offs going threatens to cripple the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, which faces unprecedented losses from the theft of intellectual property via the mass production of copycat drugs. These drugs are manufactured in places like China, the former Soviet Union, the Philippines and other places where the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has no effective oversight authority — and where the safeguards designed to protect public health taken for granted in America are virtually nonexistent.
Amazingly, some lawmakers in Congress don't recognize the extent of the threat, and are pushing legislation that would make it legal to import prescription drugs from abroad.
Such a measure would lead to a deluge of copycats entering the legitimate supply chain, since it would be virtually impossible to track what's real and prevent phony medications from entering the U.S. market.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I, B&J -- Ben and Jerry's) is fond of taunting the opponents of drug importation by asking, "Where are all the dead Canadians?" Unfortunately, the most recent answer to this question is -- Quadra Insland.
Earlier this year in Canada, a woman who purchased Xanax and Ambien from what she thought was an online Canadian pharmacy died after taking her pills. It turns out the drugs were fake — and were filled with aluminum, tin and even arsenic. They had actually been purchased from a Web site in the Czech Republic and produced in Southeast Asia. But because the medication, in all likelihood, came with labeling and packaging that was indistinguishable from the real thing, there was no way for the victim to know her pills were contaminated with dangerous impurities.
Toxicology tests found three well-known drugs in her system: alprazolam -- more commonly recognized as the anti-anxiety drug Xanax; zolpidem -- which most are acquainted with as the brand-name sleeping pill Ambien; and acetaminophen. Zolpidem is not available in Canada, so it's understandable why Bergeron turned to the internet to try to get the drug.
As the prevalence of counterfeit drugs increases, the long-term viability of legitimate pharmaceutical companies is threatened.
Estimates vary, but the cost of developing a new drug ranges from a low of around $800 million to as much as $2 billion. Much of that investment goes to cover the cost of clinical trials to assure the new drugs are safe and to meet the federal government's many regulations.
Copycats, of course, don't have to worry about any of that; they just take the proverbial ball and run with it — straight to the bank. In fact, it's estimated that counterfeit drug sales will account for $75 billion globally by 2010. According to a recent article in U.S. News & World Report, the counterfeit drug trade is already worth some $35 billion annually.
Anyone who doubts the effect such losses have — both in real terms today and in how the American pharmaceutical industry chooses to invest its dollars and its human talent tomorrow — must have slept through Econ 101.
Here's the rest of the story from today's edition of the Florida Sun-Sentinel:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-copycat13forumnbnov13,0,2801251.story
Opening the floodgates to imported drugs of unknown origin is a terrifying proposition. It poses a real risk today, and it threatens our health and well-being tomorrow Read More & Comment...
Today, one of the biggest rip-offs going threatens to cripple the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, which faces unprecedented losses from the theft of intellectual property via the mass production of copycat drugs. These drugs are manufactured in places like China, the former Soviet Union, the Philippines and other places where the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has no effective oversight authority — and where the safeguards designed to protect public health taken for granted in America are virtually nonexistent.
Amazingly, some lawmakers in Congress don't recognize the extent of the threat, and are pushing legislation that would make it legal to import prescription drugs from abroad.
Such a measure would lead to a deluge of copycats entering the legitimate supply chain, since it would be virtually impossible to track what's real and prevent phony medications from entering the U.S. market.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I, B&J -- Ben and Jerry's) is fond of taunting the opponents of drug importation by asking, "Where are all the dead Canadians?" Unfortunately, the most recent answer to this question is -- Quadra Insland.
Earlier this year in Canada, a woman who purchased Xanax and Ambien from what she thought was an online Canadian pharmacy died after taking her pills. It turns out the drugs were fake — and were filled with aluminum, tin and even arsenic. They had actually been purchased from a Web site in the Czech Republic and produced in Southeast Asia. But because the medication, in all likelihood, came with labeling and packaging that was indistinguishable from the real thing, there was no way for the victim to know her pills were contaminated with dangerous impurities.
Toxicology tests found three well-known drugs in her system: alprazolam -- more commonly recognized as the anti-anxiety drug Xanax; zolpidem -- which most are acquainted with as the brand-name sleeping pill Ambien; and acetaminophen. Zolpidem is not available in Canada, so it's understandable why Bergeron turned to the internet to try to get the drug.
As the prevalence of counterfeit drugs increases, the long-term viability of legitimate pharmaceutical companies is threatened.
Estimates vary, but the cost of developing a new drug ranges from a low of around $800 million to as much as $2 billion. Much of that investment goes to cover the cost of clinical trials to assure the new drugs are safe and to meet the federal government's many regulations.
Copycats, of course, don't have to worry about any of that; they just take the proverbial ball and run with it — straight to the bank. In fact, it's estimated that counterfeit drug sales will account for $75 billion globally by 2010. According to a recent article in U.S. News & World Report, the counterfeit drug trade is already worth some $35 billion annually.
Anyone who doubts the effect such losses have — both in real terms today and in how the American pharmaceutical industry chooses to invest its dollars and its human talent tomorrow — must have slept through Econ 101.
Here's the rest of the story from today's edition of the Florida Sun-Sentinel:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-copycat13forumnbnov13,0,2801251.story
Opening the floodgates to imported drugs of unknown origin is a terrifying proposition. It poses a real risk today, and it threatens our health and well-being tomorrow Read More & Comment...
11/12/2007 11:46 AM |
Here's the straight story:
Preschoolers With Three or More Coexisting Disorders Show No Response to ADHD Medication Treatment
BETHESDA, MD -- November 5, 2007 -- Preschoolers who are diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are not likely to respond to treatment with the stimulant methylphenidate, regardless of dosage, if they also have three or more coexisting disorders, according to a recent analysis of data from the Preschoolers with ADHD Treatment Study (PATS).
Previously reported PATS results showed that overall, low doses of methylphenidate were safe and effective in treating 3-5-year-olds diagnosed with ADHD.
This most recent study, one of seven new PATS articles published November 5, 2007, in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, sought to identify individual characteristics that may affect how a child would respond to treatment. The other articles examine topics such as the effectiveness of methylphenidate over a follow-up phase, the effects of the medication on functional outcomes for the preschoolers, and others.
"This new data is an important step forward in bridging the gap between research results and clinical practice, bringing potentially valuable information to clinicians about ways to better customize treatments for their patients," said NIMH Director Thomas R. Insel, MD. "It also identifies a group of young children who have significant and multiple problems, and for whom more research is needed to identify effective treatments."
http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/news/852571020057CCF68525738A0075CA73
Here is how the media mangled and engaged in fear mongering right off the bat:
BBC
Drugs for ADHD 'not the answer'Treating children who have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) with drugs is not effective in the long-term, research has shown.
FoxNews.com
" Drugs used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have no long-term effectiveness and could stunt your child's growth, News.com.au is reporting.
And scientists have conceded that test results that prompted the parental craze to dole out the drugs to their kids, may have been exaggerated.
In what is sure to generate debate, BBC's Panorama program Sunday aired the results of a long-term monitoring program of 600 children across the U.S. since the early 1990's.
The Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD study concluded that while drugs such as Ritalin and Concerta worked in the short term, there was no demonstrable improvement in children's behavior after three years of medication."
FoxNews.com uses the BBC as the authority! Parental craze...not too much editorializing.
Disgusting.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310596,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7090011.stm Read More & Comment...
Preschoolers With Three or More Coexisting Disorders Show No Response to ADHD Medication Treatment
BETHESDA, MD -- November 5, 2007 -- Preschoolers who are diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are not likely to respond to treatment with the stimulant methylphenidate, regardless of dosage, if they also have three or more coexisting disorders, according to a recent analysis of data from the Preschoolers with ADHD Treatment Study (PATS).
Previously reported PATS results showed that overall, low doses of methylphenidate were safe and effective in treating 3-5-year-olds diagnosed with ADHD.
This most recent study, one of seven new PATS articles published November 5, 2007, in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, sought to identify individual characteristics that may affect how a child would respond to treatment. The other articles examine topics such as the effectiveness of methylphenidate over a follow-up phase, the effects of the medication on functional outcomes for the preschoolers, and others.
"This new data is an important step forward in bridging the gap between research results and clinical practice, bringing potentially valuable information to clinicians about ways to better customize treatments for their patients," said NIMH Director Thomas R. Insel, MD. "It also identifies a group of young children who have significant and multiple problems, and for whom more research is needed to identify effective treatments."
http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/news/852571020057CCF68525738A0075CA73
Here is how the media mangled and engaged in fear mongering right off the bat:
BBC
Drugs for ADHD 'not the answer'Treating children who have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) with drugs is not effective in the long-term, research has shown.
FoxNews.com
" Drugs used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have no long-term effectiveness and could stunt your child's growth, News.com.au is reporting.
And scientists have conceded that test results that prompted the parental craze to dole out the drugs to their kids, may have been exaggerated.
In what is sure to generate debate, BBC's Panorama program Sunday aired the results of a long-term monitoring program of 600 children across the U.S. since the early 1990's.
The Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD study concluded that while drugs such as Ritalin and Concerta worked in the short term, there was no demonstrable improvement in children's behavior after three years of medication."
FoxNews.com uses the BBC as the authority! Parental craze...not too much editorializing.
Disgusting.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310596,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7090011.stm Read More & Comment...
11/12/2007 08:40 AM |
A year after safety questions about drug-coated heart stents prompted doctors to change treatment for hundreds of thousands of cardiac patients, many physicians say the medical community overreacted and should now reverse course.
The alarm was caused by medical studies suggesting that drug-coated stents might be causing deadly blood clots. But with benefit of additional data and further analysis, many doctors say drug-coated stents may not be so risky after all, at least compared with various alternatives whose drawbacks may outweigh the risks of clotting.
Because the safety fears were widespread, however, even those rooting hardest for a rebound — the companies that make stents — are not expecting a quick resurgence for the drug-coated devices. Worldwide, stent sales have fallen by about $1 billion since last year, to $5 billion this year."
The alarm was not caused by the studies but by media accounts that ignored dozens of other studies and the absolute risk of death followed by trial lawyers fanning flames of fear...
From an Oct 21 2006 article by Feder
Doctors Rethink Widespread Use of Heart Stents
..."But now stent sales are falling and some doctors are rethinking their faith in the devices, driven by emerging evidence that the newest and most common type — drug-coated stents — can sometimes cause potentially fatal blood clots months or even years after they are implanted.
The Food and Drug Administration said yesterday that it would hold hearings in early December to consider whether to issue new stent safety guidelines.
The evidence indicates that overuse of stents may be leading to thousands of heart attacks and deaths each year, whether because stents are being used in relatively mild cases where drugs should be prescribed instead, or because patients are receiving drug-coated versions where simpler, cheaper bare-metal devices might work just as well.
There is no question that stents have saved countless lives in the short term by preventing impending heart attacks or opening arteries while an attack is being treated. But neither type of stent, no matter how much better it may make a patient feel, has been shown in rigorous clinical trials to improve long-term survival compared with other forms of treatment.
“In the past we’d say, ‘Why not?,’ †said Dr. William O’Neill, a well-known cardiologist at the University of Miami and longtime advocate of using drug-coated stents. But the new safety data, he said, amounts to “a big why not†for many patients.
The new evidence has added to a long-simmering debate over whether doctors have been too quick to prescribe stenting — whether because drugs would work as well for healthier patients or because bypass surgery might help the sickest ones live longer."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/business/21stent.html?ex=1319083200&en=0ad3debe72a4dc90&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/health/research/12stent.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/F/Feder,%20Barnaby%20J. Read More & Comment...
The alarm was caused by medical studies suggesting that drug-coated stents might be causing deadly blood clots. But with benefit of additional data and further analysis, many doctors say drug-coated stents may not be so risky after all, at least compared with various alternatives whose drawbacks may outweigh the risks of clotting.
Because the safety fears were widespread, however, even those rooting hardest for a rebound — the companies that make stents — are not expecting a quick resurgence for the drug-coated devices. Worldwide, stent sales have fallen by about $1 billion since last year, to $5 billion this year."
The alarm was not caused by the studies but by media accounts that ignored dozens of other studies and the absolute risk of death followed by trial lawyers fanning flames of fear...
From an Oct 21 2006 article by Feder
Doctors Rethink Widespread Use of Heart Stents
..."But now stent sales are falling and some doctors are rethinking their faith in the devices, driven by emerging evidence that the newest and most common type — drug-coated stents — can sometimes cause potentially fatal blood clots months or even years after they are implanted.
The Food and Drug Administration said yesterday that it would hold hearings in early December to consider whether to issue new stent safety guidelines.
The evidence indicates that overuse of stents may be leading to thousands of heart attacks and deaths each year, whether because stents are being used in relatively mild cases where drugs should be prescribed instead, or because patients are receiving drug-coated versions where simpler, cheaper bare-metal devices might work just as well.
There is no question that stents have saved countless lives in the short term by preventing impending heart attacks or opening arteries while an attack is being treated. But neither type of stent, no matter how much better it may make a patient feel, has been shown in rigorous clinical trials to improve long-term survival compared with other forms of treatment.
“In the past we’d say, ‘Why not?,’ †said Dr. William O’Neill, a well-known cardiologist at the University of Miami and longtime advocate of using drug-coated stents. But the new safety data, he said, amounts to “a big why not†for many patients.
The new evidence has added to a long-simmering debate over whether doctors have been too quick to prescribe stenting — whether because drugs would work as well for healthier patients or because bypass surgery might help the sickest ones live longer."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/business/21stent.html?ex=1319083200&en=0ad3debe72a4dc90&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/health/research/12stent.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/F/Feder,%20Barnaby%20J. Read More & Comment...
11/12/2007 06:11 AM |
Advising policy-makers, taking on pundits, and fighting the good fight for patient-centric medicine is one thing -- getting quoted in Sports Illustrated is something else. Here's story that talks about how one-time Yankee great Mel Stottlemyre has had his life returned to him because of the miracles of modern medicine.
'Strong as a horse'
Treatment allows Stottlemyre to return to baseball
SEATTLE (AP) -- Mel Stottlemyre was getting his white blood cells counted for yet another month. Unsolicited, his doctor said he could go back to full-time work again, back to the ballpark routine he had followed just about every summer for 41 years.
Then came another unexpected offer.
Stottlemyre returned to the major leagues this week as the pitching coach of the Seattle Mariners, accepting the first of what he hopes is a series of one-year contracts. It's the only job that could get him back into a dugout.
"I certainly hope it lasts for more than one year," Stottlemyre said. "Whatever happens, at my age and certainly with my health issue, I'm excited for the opportunity."
The 65-year-old former pitching coach for the Yankees and Mets got cleared to return to the bigs during a visit to his Seattle-area doctor this summer. Just as she had each month for years, the doctor told Stottlemyre his blood-cell count would allow him resume the three-weeks on, one-week off pill cycle he takes to combat multiple myeloma.
But this time, she surprised the old right-hander-turned-fisherman.
"You have no restrictions to go back to work full time, if you want," she told him a few months ago.
"I wasn't even looking for that," Stottlemyre said Monday night.
The former five-time All-Star with the Yankees left them in 2005, after 10 seasons and four World Series titles as New York's pitching coach. He said he was tired of criticism from owner George Steinbrenner. Raised in Mabton, Wash., he returned to his home in the Seattle suburb of Issaquah and interviewed that fall to become manager Mike Hargrove's pitching coach with the Mariners. Hargrove chose relatively inexperienced Rafael Chaves instead.
Stottlemyre dabbled in spring training and instructional league work with the Arizona Diamondbacks last year. He golfed, fished and helped his son Todd, one of two sons who also pitched in the majors, begin his new career as a financial adviser.
One of the first clients he lined up for Todd was John McLaren, the Mariners bench coach who became manager when Hargrove abruptly resigned July 1.
The dividends from that arrangement arrived this month. McLaren called to ask Stottlemyre to replace Chaves, after Seattle's starters had a 5.12 ERA this past season -- 12th in the AL. They were the main reason for the remarkable September collapse that doomed Seattle's unlikely contention for a playof spo.
"Mel was my No. 1 choice," McLaren said. "His reputation speaks for itself."
Stottlemyre was content fishing and golfing.
"I wasn't really anxious to get back into the game -- until the Seattle job came open," Stottlemyre said. "I've always wondered what it would be like to be in baseball but still be able to come home every day."
McLaren had been golfing with Stottlemyre over the last year and noticed that his friend's health was not an issue.
"I sure wouldn't want to mess with Mel. He's strong as a horse," McLaren said.
Stottlemye credits the cancer drug lenalidomide, marketed under the brand name Revlimid, for repelling his disease. Revlimid isn't for everyone. Its retail price can reach $6,400 a month, according to the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.
"It's very expensive, but it's very effective," Stottlemyre said. "With the type of cancer I've had it's something where they never use the word 'cure.' Right now, it's not curable. It's treatable.
"I'm doing absolutely super. I have no signs of the disease. I wouldn't call it a 'remission' so much as I would say that I'm on a tremendous maintenance program."
Stottlemyre will have a far different pitching staff than the one he enjoyed with the Yankees. Instead of tutoring the likes of Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina and Andy Pettitte, he'll be demanding that Seattle's 21-year-old ace Felix Hernandez plus veteran holdovers Jarro Washburn and Miguel Batista pitch inside more -- something Stottlemyre focuses on. He also will advise McLaren and general manager Bill Bavasi as they seek another veteran starter this winter.
"At first glance, I see a very challenging job," Stottlemyre said of his new group of pitchers. "I hope that I have something to add to each that will help each one."
Talk about personalized! Read More & Comment...
'Strong as a horse'
Treatment allows Stottlemyre to return to baseball
SEATTLE (AP) -- Mel Stottlemyre was getting his white blood cells counted for yet another month. Unsolicited, his doctor said he could go back to full-time work again, back to the ballpark routine he had followed just about every summer for 41 years.
Then came another unexpected offer.
Stottlemyre returned to the major leagues this week as the pitching coach of the Seattle Mariners, accepting the first of what he hopes is a series of one-year contracts. It's the only job that could get him back into a dugout.
"I certainly hope it lasts for more than one year," Stottlemyre said. "Whatever happens, at my age and certainly with my health issue, I'm excited for the opportunity."
The 65-year-old former pitching coach for the Yankees and Mets got cleared to return to the bigs during a visit to his Seattle-area doctor this summer. Just as she had each month for years, the doctor told Stottlemyre his blood-cell count would allow him resume the three-weeks on, one-week off pill cycle he takes to combat multiple myeloma.
But this time, she surprised the old right-hander-turned-fisherman.
"You have no restrictions to go back to work full time, if you want," she told him a few months ago.
"I wasn't even looking for that," Stottlemyre said Monday night.
The former five-time All-Star with the Yankees left them in 2005, after 10 seasons and four World Series titles as New York's pitching coach. He said he was tired of criticism from owner George Steinbrenner. Raised in Mabton, Wash., he returned to his home in the Seattle suburb of Issaquah and interviewed that fall to become manager Mike Hargrove's pitching coach with the Mariners. Hargrove chose relatively inexperienced Rafael Chaves instead.
Stottlemyre dabbled in spring training and instructional league work with the Arizona Diamondbacks last year. He golfed, fished and helped his son Todd, one of two sons who also pitched in the majors, begin his new career as a financial adviser.
One of the first clients he lined up for Todd was John McLaren, the Mariners bench coach who became manager when Hargrove abruptly resigned July 1.
The dividends from that arrangement arrived this month. McLaren called to ask Stottlemyre to replace Chaves, after Seattle's starters had a 5.12 ERA this past season -- 12th in the AL. They were the main reason for the remarkable September collapse that doomed Seattle's unlikely contention for a playof spo.
"Mel was my No. 1 choice," McLaren said. "His reputation speaks for itself."
Stottlemyre was content fishing and golfing.
"I wasn't really anxious to get back into the game -- until the Seattle job came open," Stottlemyre said. "I've always wondered what it would be like to be in baseball but still be able to come home every day."
McLaren had been golfing with Stottlemyre over the last year and noticed that his friend's health was not an issue.
"I sure wouldn't want to mess with Mel. He's strong as a horse," McLaren said.
Stottlemye credits the cancer drug lenalidomide, marketed under the brand name Revlimid, for repelling his disease. Revlimid isn't for everyone. Its retail price can reach $6,400 a month, according to the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.
"It's very expensive, but it's very effective," Stottlemyre said. "With the type of cancer I've had it's something where they never use the word 'cure.' Right now, it's not curable. It's treatable.
"I'm doing absolutely super. I have no signs of the disease. I wouldn't call it a 'remission' so much as I would say that I'm on a tremendous maintenance program."
Stottlemyre will have a far different pitching staff than the one he enjoyed with the Yankees. Instead of tutoring the likes of Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina and Andy Pettitte, he'll be demanding that Seattle's 21-year-old ace Felix Hernandez plus veteran holdovers Jarro Washburn and Miguel Batista pitch inside more -- something Stottlemyre focuses on. He also will advise McLaren and general manager Bill Bavasi as they seek another veteran starter this winter.
"At first glance, I see a very challenging job," Stottlemyre said of his new group of pitchers. "I hope that I have something to add to each that will help each one."
Talk about personalized! Read More & Comment...
11/09/2007 01:48 PM |
I guess I shouldn't be tossing numbers around after being flagged for bad math just a few minutes ago. But you still have to take a turn at bat even after a strike out, so here goes.
Everyone is missing the point on the UK-US cancer comparison because everyone is too lazy to do real research. Which is how this fight over facts instead of philosophy started in the first place. If anyone had bothered to check with me -- and they didn't -- I could of told them straight up that five year survival rates can be tinkered with and explained away but age-adjusted death rates by cancer and by stage...well, they don't lie. But you actually have to do a little work with the numbers, which most health care policy wonks don't do. They regurgitate or pick and choose the facts that fit their perspective. Right and Left.
Survival rates do have some value in measuring differences.
Survival rates for lung, breast and prostate cancer – which means your chance of being alive five yeas after being diagnosed with cancer has increased more rapidly in the US for lung, prostate, breast and cervical cancer. Breast cancer five-year survival rates are higher and death rates are lower for women in the US regardless of age or stage of cancer. The age adjusted survival rates for lung cancer in the UK is about 8 percent, half that of the United States.
But often there are holes in survival rates because of time lags or gaps in regional reporting. The recent survival rates are a case in point. The UK doesn't include them for England and Wales. Just Scotland and Ireland. The Lancet study -- which uses old data too -- says it does not have age adjusted five year survival rates for those two important part's of Her Majesty's sinking healthcare system. But the UK does have year to year death rates for major forms of cancer by age. And boy do they stink.
Death rates from prostate cancer in America declined an average of 4 percent a year from 1994 to 2004 while they increased by 1 percent a year during the same time frame in England and Wales. And for man 65 or over, while the death rate from prostate cancer also declines about 4 percent year – regardless of race in America, men of the same age in England saw their chances of dying climb by 20 percent.
Screening rates climbed at about the same rate in both countries. So the difference is explained by access to medicines. For instance, NICE refused to approve reimbursement for Taxotere for men with prostate cancer that were failing to respond to hormonal treatment that improved survival. Taxotere not only was shown to extend life by up to a year but also reduce in pain and fatigue of those with no chance of cure to maximize their remaining time with their loved ones. It took months of lobbying from doctors and patient groups until NICE approved cleared its use in June of 2006. Yet today many NHS health trusts refused to cover it because it is not “cost effective.†In America, Taxotere is standard of care.
You can't find the death rate stuff just anywhere. You have to dig for out and run the numbers yourself. Easier when you don't have a real job like David Gratzer who is a real doctor and treats patients full time in Canada. Unlike the dishonest folks at Commonwealth who have billions to go with plenty of free time. And unlike Paul Krugman who gets paid to dump on people like David who has done more in a single day to advance healthcare than Krugman's attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with him has ever done.
Gratzer was making a point. If anything the death rates show that he was probably being conservative in his claims. He should be praised for being restrained and even more so for being willing to correct the record so publicly. The same cannot be said for his critics.
A recent article in Britain’s Daily Mail makes the same point the Giuliani ad tried to get across: “I won't let Daddy die: Girl of six raises £4,000 for life-saving drugs the NHS won't provide†When Britain’s National Health System said it would not pay for Tarceva, the drug her father needed to fight lung cancer, six year old Chantelle Hill put up posters throughout her neighborhood asking for donations so she could buy the drug herself.
Tarceva is not a cure but it does extend life and improve quality of life. And it’s use widely by cancer doctors in America. But Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) – which evaluates what the NHS should pay for -- found it was not cost effective.
The fact is, cancer patients in the UK do worse than they do in America not because of statistical manipulations by the Giuliani campaign but because cancer care in Britain is rationed out of cost considerations.
Chantelle Hall is going door to door in England to raise the funds she needs to buy the drug keeping her father alive because her health system thinks it isn’t cost effective. Rudy Giuliani ran an ad essentially making the point that he is glad America has a health system that, while in need of change, doesn’t force kids to make that choice on a regular basis. His numbers might be off but his heart was in the right place. So is David Gratzer's. The same can’t be said for his critics. Read More & Comment...
Everyone is missing the point on the UK-US cancer comparison because everyone is too lazy to do real research. Which is how this fight over facts instead of philosophy started in the first place. If anyone had bothered to check with me -- and they didn't -- I could of told them straight up that five year survival rates can be tinkered with and explained away but age-adjusted death rates by cancer and by stage...well, they don't lie. But you actually have to do a little work with the numbers, which most health care policy wonks don't do. They regurgitate or pick and choose the facts that fit their perspective. Right and Left.
Survival rates do have some value in measuring differences.
Survival rates for lung, breast and prostate cancer – which means your chance of being alive five yeas after being diagnosed with cancer has increased more rapidly in the US for lung, prostate, breast and cervical cancer. Breast cancer five-year survival rates are higher and death rates are lower for women in the US regardless of age or stage of cancer. The age adjusted survival rates for lung cancer in the UK is about 8 percent, half that of the United States.
But often there are holes in survival rates because of time lags or gaps in regional reporting. The recent survival rates are a case in point. The UK doesn't include them for England and Wales. Just Scotland and Ireland. The Lancet study -- which uses old data too -- says it does not have age adjusted five year survival rates for those two important part's of Her Majesty's sinking healthcare system. But the UK does have year to year death rates for major forms of cancer by age. And boy do they stink.
Death rates from prostate cancer in America declined an average of 4 percent a year from 1994 to 2004 while they increased by 1 percent a year during the same time frame in England and Wales. And for man 65 or over, while the death rate from prostate cancer also declines about 4 percent year – regardless of race in America, men of the same age in England saw their chances of dying climb by 20 percent.
Screening rates climbed at about the same rate in both countries. So the difference is explained by access to medicines. For instance, NICE refused to approve reimbursement for Taxotere for men with prostate cancer that were failing to respond to hormonal treatment that improved survival. Taxotere not only was shown to extend life by up to a year but also reduce in pain and fatigue of those with no chance of cure to maximize their remaining time with their loved ones. It took months of lobbying from doctors and patient groups until NICE approved cleared its use in June of 2006. Yet today many NHS health trusts refused to cover it because it is not “cost effective.†In America, Taxotere is standard of care.
You can't find the death rate stuff just anywhere. You have to dig for out and run the numbers yourself. Easier when you don't have a real job like David Gratzer who is a real doctor and treats patients full time in Canada. Unlike the dishonest folks at Commonwealth who have billions to go with plenty of free time. And unlike Paul Krugman who gets paid to dump on people like David who has done more in a single day to advance healthcare than Krugman's attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with him has ever done.
Gratzer was making a point. If anything the death rates show that he was probably being conservative in his claims. He should be praised for being restrained and even more so for being willing to correct the record so publicly. The same cannot be said for his critics.
A recent article in Britain’s Daily Mail makes the same point the Giuliani ad tried to get across: “I won't let Daddy die: Girl of six raises £4,000 for life-saving drugs the NHS won't provide†When Britain’s National Health System said it would not pay for Tarceva, the drug her father needed to fight lung cancer, six year old Chantelle Hill put up posters throughout her neighborhood asking for donations so she could buy the drug herself.
Tarceva is not a cure but it does extend life and improve quality of life. And it’s use widely by cancer doctors in America. But Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) – which evaluates what the NHS should pay for -- found it was not cost effective.
The fact is, cancer patients in the UK do worse than they do in America not because of statistical manipulations by the Giuliani campaign but because cancer care in Britain is rationed out of cost considerations.
Chantelle Hall is going door to door in England to raise the funds she needs to buy the drug keeping her father alive because her health system thinks it isn’t cost effective. Rudy Giuliani ran an ad essentially making the point that he is glad America has a health system that, while in need of change, doesn’t force kids to make that choice on a regular basis. His numbers might be off but his heart was in the right place. So is David Gratzer's. The same can’t be said for his critics. Read More & Comment...
11/09/2007 10:29 AM |
Which of these is likely to be the per client amount individuals who entered the Vioxx litigation sweepstakes are going to get:
a. $1million
b. $400k
c. $75000
d. $5300
If you picked d) you get a tube of John Edwards' hair gel. That's right. Take the $4.8 billion Merck will fork over, give half of it to all those well meaning trial attorneys and then divide the rest among the 45000 plaintiffs.
CORRECTION: My friend, and consigliere Paul Windels nails me on the math, my estimate of the tort take and my cheap calculator that only runs into the hundreds of milions and wins a case of hair grout with the following email...
Bob -- I think you have a decimal point error here. If there are 45,000 plaintiffs, $5,000 per plaintiff is around 225 million. Your number is correct if there are 450,000 plaintiffs -- on the other hand any plaintiff with a decent case would opt out of the settlement if it were only worth $5,300. I would expect a fee max 33% meaning $3.2 billion net, which would be around $70K per, a much more attractive number. Cheers. Paul.
Did Merck ignore safety signals of Vioxx in a way that made it liable for people dying. No. There are lots of safety signals. Are there better ways to figure out which ones reflect real risk. You bet and that means not having to wait four years to find out about them, which was the point of Eric Topol's original article about Vioxx. Are we any closer to knowing how to manage the risks of COX-2s because of the grandstanding and litigation? No. Could Vioxx been remarketed and sold with tighter restrictions in a saner, less politicized environment. Yes. What will help patients more, better monitoring of risks and benefits of meds post market using 21st century science or a system gripped by fear and controlled by trial lawyers and self proclaimed consumer advocates who dredge data for danger?
On a lighter front, Crestor just got a label for atherosclerosis, a label which simvastatin generic Zocor, Stephanie Saul's drug of choice does not have. Simvastatin also seems to cause sleep problems in some patients which I am surprised Stephanie didn't know about since she is the NYT in house expert on sleep.
I hearken back to her article about Pfizer trying to maintain market share in the face of simvastatin competition and the firm trying to use the fact that patients respond differently to different drugs as a way to keep more people on Lipitor if its good for them in the long run. How about this as a proposition: not what's cheapest, but what is best and has the fewest side effects given our specific health needs. As we move towards personalized medicine those will be the claims that count. Or is that marketing too? In a politicized environment our choice is as follows: A drug that is marketed by drug companies is bad even if it is personalized. A drug dispensed according the musings ofJerry Avorn or some researcher who ignores individual differences in drug response to justify the cheapest (the Soros funded approach of the Institute for Medicine as Profession)..that's great. Read More & Comment...
a. $1million
b. $400k
c. $75000
d. $5300
If you picked d) you get a tube of John Edwards' hair gel. That's right. Take the $4.8 billion Merck will fork over, give half of it to all those well meaning trial attorneys and then divide the rest among the 45000 plaintiffs.
CORRECTION: My friend, and consigliere Paul Windels nails me on the math, my estimate of the tort take and my cheap calculator that only runs into the hundreds of milions and wins a case of hair grout with the following email...
Bob -- I think you have a decimal point error here. If there are 45,000 plaintiffs, $5,000 per plaintiff is around 225 million. Your number is correct if there are 450,000 plaintiffs -- on the other hand any plaintiff with a decent case would opt out of the settlement if it were only worth $5,300. I would expect a fee max 33% meaning $3.2 billion net, which would be around $70K per, a much more attractive number. Cheers. Paul.
Did Merck ignore safety signals of Vioxx in a way that made it liable for people dying. No. There are lots of safety signals. Are there better ways to figure out which ones reflect real risk. You bet and that means not having to wait four years to find out about them, which was the point of Eric Topol's original article about Vioxx. Are we any closer to knowing how to manage the risks of COX-2s because of the grandstanding and litigation? No. Could Vioxx been remarketed and sold with tighter restrictions in a saner, less politicized environment. Yes. What will help patients more, better monitoring of risks and benefits of meds post market using 21st century science or a system gripped by fear and controlled by trial lawyers and self proclaimed consumer advocates who dredge data for danger?
On a lighter front, Crestor just got a label for atherosclerosis, a label which simvastatin generic Zocor, Stephanie Saul's drug of choice does not have. Simvastatin also seems to cause sleep problems in some patients which I am surprised Stephanie didn't know about since she is the NYT in house expert on sleep.
I hearken back to her article about Pfizer trying to maintain market share in the face of simvastatin competition and the firm trying to use the fact that patients respond differently to different drugs as a way to keep more people on Lipitor if its good for them in the long run. How about this as a proposition: not what's cheapest, but what is best and has the fewest side effects given our specific health needs. As we move towards personalized medicine those will be the claims that count. Or is that marketing too? In a politicized environment our choice is as follows: A drug that is marketed by drug companies is bad even if it is personalized. A drug dispensed according the musings ofJerry Avorn or some researcher who ignores individual differences in drug response to justify the cheapest (the Soros funded approach of the Institute for Medicine as Profession)..that's great. Read More & Comment...
11/09/2007 08:46 AM |
By now you will have surely have heard about Merck's $4.85 billion Vioxx settlement. That comes out to something more-or-less like $100,000 per plaintiff -- and not one cent for tribute to trial lawyers.
To paraphrase -- a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about a settlement. My sources confirm that Merck had been spending about $1 billion a year on Vioxx litigation -- and, with no end in sight, $4.85 billion to make it go away is the smart fiduciary play.
That being said, it must stick in the craw of the folks at Merck to pony up this kind of do-re-mi for having done nothing wrong -- money that could (and should) have been spent on R&D.
If anything positive can come out of this travesty it's this -- Merck stood up for what it thought was right, won more than they lost -- and showed the trial bar, pundits, and pols that they weren't going to be doormats for cheap shots and SiCKO soundbites.
And that's a valuable lesson for the rest of the Big Pharma brethren. Read More & Comment...
To paraphrase -- a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about a settlement. My sources confirm that Merck had been spending about $1 billion a year on Vioxx litigation -- and, with no end in sight, $4.85 billion to make it go away is the smart fiduciary play.
That being said, it must stick in the craw of the folks at Merck to pony up this kind of do-re-mi for having done nothing wrong -- money that could (and should) have been spent on R&D.
If anything positive can come out of this travesty it's this -- Merck stood up for what it thought was right, won more than they lost -- and showed the trial bar, pundits, and pols that they weren't going to be doormats for cheap shots and SiCKO soundbites.
And that's a valuable lesson for the rest of the Big Pharma brethren. Read More & Comment...
11/09/2007 06:55 AM |
In case you missed the news, SiCKO is now out on DVD – and it seems that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman made a beeline to Blockbuster.
Call it an early Hanukah present for a true believer.
His column, “Health Care Excuses,†replays the same tried and untrue arguments made in the Moore-ish cult classic. Here’s a link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/opinion/09krugman.html?ref=opinion
Looks like he read our November 5th blog, “Debunking Some Health Care Urban Myths" --
http://drugwonks.com/2007/11/debunking_some_health_care_urban_myths.html
-- where we take many of the more infamous Moore/Krugisms to task.
Well, at least he's reading -- if not learning.
(And we'll keep trying.) Read More & Comment...
Call it an early Hanukah present for a true believer.
His column, “Health Care Excuses,†replays the same tried and untrue arguments made in the Moore-ish cult classic. Here’s a link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/opinion/09krugman.html?ref=opinion
Looks like he read our November 5th blog, “Debunking Some Health Care Urban Myths" --
http://drugwonks.com/2007/11/debunking_some_health_care_urban_myths.html
-- where we take many of the more infamous Moore/Krugisms to task.
Well, at least he's reading -- if not learning.
(And we'll keep trying.) Read More & Comment...
11/08/2007 01:29 PM |
ASCO/ASH, ACCC, EMEA and now the FDA all say the following with respect to ESA dosing
"The dosing recommendations for anemic patients with chronic renal failure have been revised to recommend maintaining hemoglobin levels within 10-12g/dL."
CMS stands alone -- along with insurers who jumped on board to save money -- as the only government agency to limit access based on safety.
Why does CMS think that ESAs are less safe at anything more than 10g/dL when everyone else thinks otherwise? Why does CMS think it can limit doctor discretion?
Here is the FDA label update.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/RHE/default.htm Read More & Comment...
"The dosing recommendations for anemic patients with chronic renal failure have been revised to recommend maintaining hemoglobin levels within 10-12g/dL."
CMS stands alone -- along with insurers who jumped on board to save money -- as the only government agency to limit access based on safety.
Why does CMS think that ESAs are less safe at anything more than 10g/dL when everyone else thinks otherwise? Why does CMS think it can limit doctor discretion?
Here is the FDA label update.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/RHE/default.htm Read More & Comment...
11/08/2007 09:07 AM |
Peter and I are leaving for Israel today where will be participating in and co-sponsoring a three day program for Israeli biotech startups designed to help them improved their ability to become full fledged companies. Israel is home to some of the best translational science in the world and providing companies insights to the policy and regulatory environment in the US can help enhance value and improve efficiency. The conference is entitled Health Care Technological Innovation: From Idea to Commercialization. It's co-sponsored by the Israel Life Science Industry, The International Institute for Biotechnology Entrenpreneurship, Tel Aviv University's Recanti School of Business and CMPI.
It's Peter's first trip and as for me, I get to see my son who, as some of you know, is serving in the IDF.
Here's the conference agenda:
http://biomedmanagement.tau.ac.il/
We will blog from Israel! Read More & Comment...
It's Peter's first trip and as for me, I get to see my son who, as some of you know, is serving in the IDF.
Here's the conference agenda:
http://biomedmanagement.tau.ac.il/
We will blog from Israel! Read More & Comment...
11/08/2007 07:56 AM |
Per the current shenanigans going in at the IGWG in Geneva, here's a breath of fresh air -- a thoughtful analysis on the actual state of affairs vis-Ã -vis drug development and patents. It's by Philip Stevens of the International Policy Network and appears in Investors Business Daily. It's a potent rebuttal of the various and sundry half-truths put forward by Jamie Love, the Pancho Villa of Patents, and his fellow travelers.
If R&D Ain't Broke, Why Break It?
BY PHILIP STEVENS
There is a long list of complaints against the current system of drug development:
• Patents and profits have failed to produce new medications for the diseases of poor countries.
• There are not enough groundbreaking new therapies.
• Profiteering companies routinely make tiny changes to drugs to extend patents and shut out competition.
• Not only that, the patent system allows companies to charge astronomical sums for the drugs they do produce.
These allegations come from a powerful group of ideological nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs, that abhor profit in medicine and are pushing the World Health Organization toward a global treaty that would completely change the way drugs are researched and developed.
But before taking their medicine, we should take a close look at the label — and the nasty side effects.
This Medical Research and Development Treaty, proposed by Brazil and Kenya, would have a central U.N. bureaucracy deciding what diseases to research while allocating funds, contracts and prizes accordingly. Its expert scientists would ensure that all diseases are given appropriate resources, including the handful of "unprofitable" tropical diseases in poor counties.
NGOs, including humanitarian groups such as Medecins Sans Frontieres, hope this scheme will solve the failings of the current system at a stroke.
Because intellectual property would be owned by governments, drug prices would plummet. Less would be spent on frivolous ailments such as erectile dysfunction and baldness, and more on malaria and HIV/AIDS. Resources could be concentrated on groundbreaking "blockbuster" drugs, instead of the small molecular changes that are routinely patented now.
When the WHO first mooted the treaty in May 2006, MSF called it a "breakthrough" that "would ensure that patients' needs rather than profits drove innovation."
If the aim is to punish Big Pharma's stockholders, it will probably work. But as a way of producing cheap innovative drugs for the poor, it fails on several counts.
First, giving such discretionary power to bureaucrats would politicize R&D. In a centrally directed system — as in Britain's health service — resources tend to go to the loudest pressure groups. Other diseases would be neglected in favor of politically high-profile diseases such as HIV/AIDS.
Neither is it clear how an unelected body in Geneva would be better at setting priorities than the thousands of scientists and businessmen whose livelihoods depend on getting these decisions right.
Second, using state-funded prizes as the major incentive for R&D is problematic. The prize committee can never know the true market value of the drug it is hoping to create. If the prize is too low, companies will be reluctant to compete for future prizes, leading to fewer new drugs. If the prize is too high, the new system will squander taxpayers' money and divert effort from other areas of research.
Prizes were much favored in the Soviet Union, but they never resulted in much innovation.
Third, the treaty would turn drug manufacturers into utilities, living off government contracts. Removing the freedom to decide what to sell and at what price will discourage companies from risking capital to reap rewards, which is how innovation happens.
This is a clear lesson from regulated utilities such as water, electricity, telephones and gas. In a minimal-profit sector, companies do the bare minimum to fulfill their contractual obligations.
Most fundamentally, the treaty does not solve the greatest health care problem in poorer countries: how to actually get the drugs to patients in the face of crumbling hospitals and chronic shortages of doctors and nurses.
In 2006, the director of the World Health Organization's HIV division, Kevin De Cock, said "it is very obvious that the elephant in the room is not the current price of drugs. The real obstacle is the fragility of the health systems. You have health infrastructure that is dilapidated, and supply chains that don't exist."
If prices are an issue, why not scrap taxes and tariffs on medicines, which can increase the manufacturer's price by up to 11 times? These taxes on the sick are levied by many poor countries, including Kenya.
Removing commercial incentives will make companies retreat from the difficult and expensive work on cures for cancer and the like, and try to regain lost profits in politically safe "lifestyle" ailments. And governments have yet to demonstrate that they can produce drugs themselves.
All this is worrying for the U.S., which has already allowed the draft treaty to progress too far. There are echoes of the Clinton administration's hapless negotiation of the TRIPS agreement in 1994, which is now coming back to haunt America.
That agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights includes a clause designed to allow emergency production of essential medicines in poor countries. In practice, its wording is so vague that it allows any government to override the patent on any drug it likes. Middle-income Brazil and Thailand are now doing exactly that.
If the negotiators from the Department of Health and Human Services do not firmly reject the proposals at the WHO's Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property in Geneva this week, there won't be any pharmaceutical patent rights worth the name. This will be a body blow to innovation.
The current patent-based R&D model has produced most of the drugs that exist. It has a few problems, but there is no point junking it for an ill-conceived NGO fantasy. The biggest losers will not be stockholders, but patients.
Well said, Philip. Read More & Comment...
If R&D Ain't Broke, Why Break It?
BY PHILIP STEVENS
There is a long list of complaints against the current system of drug development:
• Patents and profits have failed to produce new medications for the diseases of poor countries.
• There are not enough groundbreaking new therapies.
• Profiteering companies routinely make tiny changes to drugs to extend patents and shut out competition.
• Not only that, the patent system allows companies to charge astronomical sums for the drugs they do produce.
These allegations come from a powerful group of ideological nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs, that abhor profit in medicine and are pushing the World Health Organization toward a global treaty that would completely change the way drugs are researched and developed.
But before taking their medicine, we should take a close look at the label — and the nasty side effects.
This Medical Research and Development Treaty, proposed by Brazil and Kenya, would have a central U.N. bureaucracy deciding what diseases to research while allocating funds, contracts and prizes accordingly. Its expert scientists would ensure that all diseases are given appropriate resources, including the handful of "unprofitable" tropical diseases in poor counties.
NGOs, including humanitarian groups such as Medecins Sans Frontieres, hope this scheme will solve the failings of the current system at a stroke.
Because intellectual property would be owned by governments, drug prices would plummet. Less would be spent on frivolous ailments such as erectile dysfunction and baldness, and more on malaria and HIV/AIDS. Resources could be concentrated on groundbreaking "blockbuster" drugs, instead of the small molecular changes that are routinely patented now.
When the WHO first mooted the treaty in May 2006, MSF called it a "breakthrough" that "would ensure that patients' needs rather than profits drove innovation."
If the aim is to punish Big Pharma's stockholders, it will probably work. But as a way of producing cheap innovative drugs for the poor, it fails on several counts.
First, giving such discretionary power to bureaucrats would politicize R&D. In a centrally directed system — as in Britain's health service — resources tend to go to the loudest pressure groups. Other diseases would be neglected in favor of politically high-profile diseases such as HIV/AIDS.
Neither is it clear how an unelected body in Geneva would be better at setting priorities than the thousands of scientists and businessmen whose livelihoods depend on getting these decisions right.
Second, using state-funded prizes as the major incentive for R&D is problematic. The prize committee can never know the true market value of the drug it is hoping to create. If the prize is too low, companies will be reluctant to compete for future prizes, leading to fewer new drugs. If the prize is too high, the new system will squander taxpayers' money and divert effort from other areas of research.
Prizes were much favored in the Soviet Union, but they never resulted in much innovation.
Third, the treaty would turn drug manufacturers into utilities, living off government contracts. Removing the freedom to decide what to sell and at what price will discourage companies from risking capital to reap rewards, which is how innovation happens.
This is a clear lesson from regulated utilities such as water, electricity, telephones and gas. In a minimal-profit sector, companies do the bare minimum to fulfill their contractual obligations.
Most fundamentally, the treaty does not solve the greatest health care problem in poorer countries: how to actually get the drugs to patients in the face of crumbling hospitals and chronic shortages of doctors and nurses.
In 2006, the director of the World Health Organization's HIV division, Kevin De Cock, said "it is very obvious that the elephant in the room is not the current price of drugs. The real obstacle is the fragility of the health systems. You have health infrastructure that is dilapidated, and supply chains that don't exist."
If prices are an issue, why not scrap taxes and tariffs on medicines, which can increase the manufacturer's price by up to 11 times? These taxes on the sick are levied by many poor countries, including Kenya.
Removing commercial incentives will make companies retreat from the difficult and expensive work on cures for cancer and the like, and try to regain lost profits in politically safe "lifestyle" ailments. And governments have yet to demonstrate that they can produce drugs themselves.
All this is worrying for the U.S., which has already allowed the draft treaty to progress too far. There are echoes of the Clinton administration's hapless negotiation of the TRIPS agreement in 1994, which is now coming back to haunt America.
That agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights includes a clause designed to allow emergency production of essential medicines in poor countries. In practice, its wording is so vague that it allows any government to override the patent on any drug it likes. Middle-income Brazil and Thailand are now doing exactly that.
If the negotiators from the Department of Health and Human Services do not firmly reject the proposals at the WHO's Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property in Geneva this week, there won't be any pharmaceutical patent rights worth the name. This will be a body blow to innovation.
The current patent-based R&D model has produced most of the drugs that exist. It has a few problems, but there is no point junking it for an ill-conceived NGO fantasy. The biggest losers will not be stockholders, but patients.
Well said, Philip. Read More & Comment...
11/08/2007 06:30 AM |
DrugWonks is proud to have been chosen by BioTech360 (a publication of The Scientist) as the #1 “must read†blog for those in the wonderful world of biotech.
According to Biotech360 blogger Yali Friedman, “As the forum for the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, Drug Wonks covers policy affecting biotechnology. This blog also tracks and responds to Op-Eds and other news items, providing additional perspective on many important topics.â€
His top five list can be found at:
http://www.biotech360.com/biotechArticleDisplay.jsp?biotechArticleId=100039
Thanks Yali. Read More & Comment...
According to Biotech360 blogger Yali Friedman, “As the forum for the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, Drug Wonks covers policy affecting biotechnology. This blog also tracks and responds to Op-Eds and other news items, providing additional perspective on many important topics.â€
His top five list can be found at:
http://www.biotech360.com/biotechArticleDisplay.jsp?biotechArticleId=100039
Thanks Yali. Read More & Comment...
11/07/2007 08:15 AM |
Frank Lichtenberg published a study in Health Affairs demonstrating something that we already knew: a lot of the drug coverage of part D crowded out private drug coverage and increased utilization by about 12 percent. Much of the increase was in the area of generic drug spending. So much for the Big Pharma windfall. Part D was essentially what those of us who supported said it would be: a modernization of Medicare the goal of which would be to extend drug coverage to a program that did not have it and to milions of seniors who were poor and were receiving drug coverage through restrictive Medicaid formularies.
So what's the difference between supporting a Part D crowd out and not an SCHIP crowd out? Part D is a step towards privatizing Medicare -- full of choices and pasrt of an effort to get seniors to buy into private plans and everyone knows it. SCHIP is a step towards socializing healthcare and everyone knows it.
Lichtenberg points out also that Medicare Part D has the benefit of reducing Medicare spending overall. We need studies to demonstrate this happening at various income groups and disease states.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/6/1735 Read More & Comment...
So what's the difference between supporting a Part D crowd out and not an SCHIP crowd out? Part D is a step towards privatizing Medicare -- full of choices and pasrt of an effort to get seniors to buy into private plans and everyone knows it. SCHIP is a step towards socializing healthcare and everyone knows it.
Lichtenberg points out also that Medicare Part D has the benefit of reducing Medicare spending overall. We need studies to demonstrate this happening at various income groups and disease states.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/6/1735 Read More & Comment...
11/07/2007 08:03 AM |
Those screams you heard came from "I hate Big Pharma" being hoisted on the drug safety petard of their own making as Momenta's hard to mimic version of Lovenox was being rejected by the FDA because of concerns that the company hadn't accounted for uncountrolled immune reactions to its version of the product. And of course that doesn't even begin to to address what sort of studies Momenta would have to undertake to deal with safety concerns, what risk mitigation system it would have to put in place, what post marketing surveillance it would have to conduct, what clinical trials data it would have to post, blah,blah blah.
FOBs will hit the market eventually. But it is great to see those who take drug companies to task about safety seek to rationalize rushing FOBs to market without similar consumer protections. And they care more about rushing FOBs to market than accelerating the review of new life saving medicines which Momemta is also working on. It's called I hate pharma hypocrisy. Read More & Comment...
FOBs will hit the market eventually. But it is great to see those who take drug companies to task about safety seek to rationalize rushing FOBs to market without similar consumer protections. And they care more about rushing FOBs to market than accelerating the review of new life saving medicines which Momemta is also working on. It's called I hate pharma hypocrisy. Read More & Comment...
11/07/2007 08:00 AM |
Had a look at the Non-Prescription Drug Modernization yet? It was just introduced by Representative Henry Waxman (R, CA), Representative Tom Allen (D, ME), and Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA.). It’s a well-meaning, but knee-jerk reaction in response to the recent FDA advisory committee vote over banning over-the-counter cough and cold medicines for children under six.
Here’s a link to the legislation:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071106143446.pdf
Among other things, this bill would allow the FDA to ban marketing of the drugs while the rulemaking process was still under way.
That’s right – “ban†advertising.
We’ve already covered how we feel about the recent AdComm vote (see two October 19th posts, “Dosing for Dummies†and “Cough, Sniffle, Sneeze – No OTC Meds for Children, Pleaseâ€). Per this new legislation, we concur with our friend Adonis Hoffman over at the American Association of Advertising Agencies.
Here’s what Adonis has to say:
"We are all concerned about the cough and cold medications for children that have been in the news reports lately. Nobody benefits from false or misleading advertising of any kind, whether it is for over-the-counter or prescription medications."
He also, wisely, point out that there are already "ample and appropriate regulatory penalties in place to handle these problems. The authority of both the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration is intact. I'm not sure whether there is a need for new changes."
Hopefully this will be a robust debate over how good communications can improve the public health -- not another public flogging of the industry.
Just call us starry-eyed optimists. Read More & Comment...
Here’s a link to the legislation:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071106143446.pdf
Among other things, this bill would allow the FDA to ban marketing of the drugs while the rulemaking process was still under way.
That’s right – “ban†advertising.
We’ve already covered how we feel about the recent AdComm vote (see two October 19th posts, “Dosing for Dummies†and “Cough, Sniffle, Sneeze – No OTC Meds for Children, Pleaseâ€). Per this new legislation, we concur with our friend Adonis Hoffman over at the American Association of Advertising Agencies.
Here’s what Adonis has to say:
"We are all concerned about the cough and cold medications for children that have been in the news reports lately. Nobody benefits from false or misleading advertising of any kind, whether it is for over-the-counter or prescription medications."
He also, wisely, point out that there are already "ample and appropriate regulatory penalties in place to handle these problems. The authority of both the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration is intact. I'm not sure whether there is a need for new changes."
Hopefully this will be a robust debate over how good communications can improve the public health -- not another public flogging of the industry.
Just call us starry-eyed optimists. Read More & Comment...
11/06/2007 03:17 PM |
Lots of info coming in about drugs in development then and now showing the (Critical) path forward is towards retargeting, retooling, repositioning drugs to specific groups and for monitoring risks and benefits post market...
1. Research from the studies showing that while Lilly's Prasugrel proved better able to prevent heart attacks than Plavix, the drug led to excess life threatening bleeding compared to Plavix at a statistically significant level in patients with acute coronary syndrome. But Lilly, consistent with a commitment to pharmacogenomics and targeted therapeutics has identified subgroups that are most likely to have that risk. The PI of the study, Dr. Elliot Antman, said that most of the bleeding was driven by two groups -- patients with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attacks and elderly, frail patients (older than 75 weighing less than 60 kg) -- who comprised 20% of the total population.
"For the remaining 80% of the patients, which I would say represented eight of 10 patients undergoing stenting, the drug works very well," Dr. Antman said in an interview.
Moreover, among one high-risk group -- diabetics -- "there was no excess bleeding and a 30% reduction in MIs compared with clopidogrel."
Wall Street sniffs that the market will be minimal. But Plavix goes off patent in 2011 while Lilly's drug could get a Pgx label with improved safety and benefit profiles. How minimal is that?
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AHAMeeting/tb/7217
2. The CETP trilogy. Efforts to raise good cholesterol is the holy grail of the cardiovascular world Pfizer's drug sent torcetrapib chills down the spine of others developing drugs based this target. But further analysis shows that increased blood pressure and changes in electrolytes (which caused the heart attacks in Pfizer's drug study) signal the potential activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) by torcetrapib. The greater RAAS activation may weaken the benefit of raising HDL."
Translation: if your drug (Merck and BMS) doesn't activate the RAAS pathway or you can develop a blood test that predict who won't or will have that effect you might be able to bring other HDL drugs to market.
http://www.drugresearcher.com/news/ng.asp?n=81155-pfizer-merck-bristol-myers-squib-bms-torcetrapib-cetp
It's biomarker based research at it's best. Good news for patients. Bad news for Merrill Goozner and others who want to claim biomarkers are just a tool for making drugs unsafe. Read More & Comment...
1. Research from the studies showing that while Lilly's Prasugrel proved better able to prevent heart attacks than Plavix, the drug led to excess life threatening bleeding compared to Plavix at a statistically significant level in patients with acute coronary syndrome. But Lilly, consistent with a commitment to pharmacogenomics and targeted therapeutics has identified subgroups that are most likely to have that risk. The PI of the study, Dr. Elliot Antman, said that most of the bleeding was driven by two groups -- patients with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attacks and elderly, frail patients (older than 75 weighing less than 60 kg) -- who comprised 20% of the total population.
"For the remaining 80% of the patients, which I would say represented eight of 10 patients undergoing stenting, the drug works very well," Dr. Antman said in an interview.
Moreover, among one high-risk group -- diabetics -- "there was no excess bleeding and a 30% reduction in MIs compared with clopidogrel."
Wall Street sniffs that the market will be minimal. But Plavix goes off patent in 2011 while Lilly's drug could get a Pgx label with improved safety and benefit profiles. How minimal is that?
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AHAMeeting/tb/7217
2. The CETP trilogy. Efforts to raise good cholesterol is the holy grail of the cardiovascular world Pfizer's drug sent torcetrapib chills down the spine of others developing drugs based this target. But further analysis shows that increased blood pressure and changes in electrolytes (which caused the heart attacks in Pfizer's drug study) signal the potential activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) by torcetrapib. The greater RAAS activation may weaken the benefit of raising HDL."
Translation: if your drug (Merck and BMS) doesn't activate the RAAS pathway or you can develop a blood test that predict who won't or will have that effect you might be able to bring other HDL drugs to market.
http://www.drugresearcher.com/news/ng.asp?n=81155-pfizer-merck-bristol-myers-squib-bms-torcetrapib-cetp
It's biomarker based research at it's best. Good news for patients. Bad news for Merrill Goozner and others who want to claim biomarkers are just a tool for making drugs unsafe. Read More & Comment...
11/06/2007 05:56 AM |
Maybe they should call it Médecins Avec Menteurs.
In an e-mail today from the folks over at Médecins Sans Frontières discuss this week's meeting in Geneva of the WHO's Intergovernmental Working Group for Public Health, Innovation, and Intellectual Property (IGWG).
Here's what MSF has to say about the current fight against "neglected" diseases:
"“The R&D system is broken. It is not delivering,†said Dr. Tido von Schoen-Angerer, Director of MSF’s Access to Essential Medicines Campaign."
And here's what the infamous Jamie Love said in an ensuing paragraph:
"We need new mechanisms and institutional responses to move toward a paradigm of innovation plus access, rather than a set of poorly functioning trade-offs. The big ideas in the negotiation are patent pools, prizes and a treaty on medical R&D. They are also the most
controversial."
What a terrific example of the "Big Lie."
Consider what Solomon Nwaka (leader of drug discovery activities at the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases at the WHO) wrote (along with other co-authors from Pfizer) on the subject of finding ways to battle tropical diseases:
"Scaling up drug-discovery capacity for neglected diseases means designing a mechanism that is attractive to all stakeholders — such as industry, academia, governments and international agencies — involved in drug discovery. Despite a lack of market incentive, about half of the research projects currently focusing on neglected diseases are conducted by pharmaceutical companies. Several large companies, most notably GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly, have founded research institutes dedicated to research into tropical diseases. Industry also makes a substantial contribution in kind to public–private product-development partnerships. Also, in recent years, funding from governments and philanthropic foundations has helped to establish new drug-discovery units for tropical diseases in developed and developing countries."
Here is a link to the complete article in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7159/full/449166a.html
And let's not forget what Dr. Margaret Chan, WHO's Director-General had to say about why communicable diseases remain such a large problem in poor countries and are often neglected by research and development. One reason, she said, is that the pharmaceutical industry "has little incentive to develop drugs and vaccines for markets that cannot pay."
Indeedn if a company stands no chance of recouping even a portion of that investment, where is its incentive to tackle the many diseases that ravage the developing world?
And yet, according to MSF, "intellectual property is not a significant factor in contributing to innovation for diseases that disproportionately affect developing countries."
Thomas Carlyle said, "Our main business is not to see what lies dimly at a distance but to do what lies clearly at hand." Mr. Love and his friends at Médecins Sans Frontières are trying to sell a "vision" that, conveniently, blames the West for the problems of the developing world while what "lies clearly at hand" is almost exactly the opposite -- that the rule of law that has allowed for the development of the modern pharmaceutical industry via protection of interllectual property is what lights the road to victory over the scourge of neglected diseases. Read More & Comment...
In an e-mail today from the folks over at Médecins Sans Frontières discuss this week's meeting in Geneva of the WHO's Intergovernmental Working Group for Public Health, Innovation, and Intellectual Property (IGWG).
Here's what MSF has to say about the current fight against "neglected" diseases:
"“The R&D system is broken. It is not delivering,†said Dr. Tido von Schoen-Angerer, Director of MSF’s Access to Essential Medicines Campaign."
And here's what the infamous Jamie Love said in an ensuing paragraph:
"We need new mechanisms and institutional responses to move toward a paradigm of innovation plus access, rather than a set of poorly functioning trade-offs. The big ideas in the negotiation are patent pools, prizes and a treaty on medical R&D. They are also the most
controversial."
What a terrific example of the "Big Lie."
Consider what Solomon Nwaka (leader of drug discovery activities at the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases at the WHO) wrote (along with other co-authors from Pfizer) on the subject of finding ways to battle tropical diseases:
"Scaling up drug-discovery capacity for neglected diseases means designing a mechanism that is attractive to all stakeholders — such as industry, academia, governments and international agencies — involved in drug discovery. Despite a lack of market incentive, about half of the research projects currently focusing on neglected diseases are conducted by pharmaceutical companies. Several large companies, most notably GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly, have founded research institutes dedicated to research into tropical diseases. Industry also makes a substantial contribution in kind to public–private product-development partnerships. Also, in recent years, funding from governments and philanthropic foundations has helped to establish new drug-discovery units for tropical diseases in developed and developing countries."
Here is a link to the complete article in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7159/full/449166a.html
And let's not forget what Dr. Margaret Chan, WHO's Director-General had to say about why communicable diseases remain such a large problem in poor countries and are often neglected by research and development. One reason, she said, is that the pharmaceutical industry "has little incentive to develop drugs and vaccines for markets that cannot pay."
Indeedn if a company stands no chance of recouping even a portion of that investment, where is its incentive to tackle the many diseases that ravage the developing world?
And yet, according to MSF, "intellectual property is not a significant factor in contributing to innovation for diseases that disproportionately affect developing countries."
Thomas Carlyle said, "Our main business is not to see what lies dimly at a distance but to do what lies clearly at hand." Mr. Love and his friends at Médecins Sans Frontières are trying to sell a "vision" that, conveniently, blames the West for the problems of the developing world while what "lies clearly at hand" is almost exactly the opposite -- that the rule of law that has allowed for the development of the modern pharmaceutical industry via protection of interllectual property is what lights the road to victory over the scourge of neglected diseases. Read More & Comment...
11/05/2007 09:12 AM |
Another dividend from the politics of fear: an empty antibiotic pipeline and an FDA that has pushed the safety bar for new drugs against bugs to unachievably high standards.
More people will die because of the absence of new drugs. The policies that have brough this about were built on false premises and false fears. mistrust has become an important source for scientific investigations themselves. Scientists nowadays build a career on technophobia within society. They are the first group who form the
scientific core of the precautionary coalition. They feed this information to consumer groups and politicians who, through the media and policies and hearings institutionalize mistrust, fear and suspicion.
The politics of fear breads both inaction and regulatory paternalism. Nothing is safe so everything must be regulated and tested. More is studied but nothing new is introduced because novelty has unknown risks which are judged more dangerous than the problem it was designed to solve.
So we are left with hardly any new drugs against emerging pathogens. That is the way the Luddites would have it. Better dead people than thriving, profitable drug companies.
http://www.nj.com/business/times/index.ssf?/base/business-3/11941492275600.xml&coll=5 Read More & Comment...
More people will die because of the absence of new drugs. The policies that have brough this about were built on false premises and false fears. mistrust has become an important source for scientific investigations themselves. Scientists nowadays build a career on technophobia within society. They are the first group who form the
scientific core of the precautionary coalition. They feed this information to consumer groups and politicians who, through the media and policies and hearings institutionalize mistrust, fear and suspicion.
The politics of fear breads both inaction and regulatory paternalism. Nothing is safe so everything must be regulated and tested. More is studied but nothing new is introduced because novelty has unknown risks which are judged more dangerous than the problem it was designed to solve.
So we are left with hardly any new drugs against emerging pathogens. That is the way the Luddites would have it. Better dead people than thriving, profitable drug companies.
http://www.nj.com/business/times/index.ssf?/base/business-3/11941492275600.xml&coll=5 Read More & Comment...
Social Networks
Please Follow the Drugwonks Blog on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube & RSS
Add This Blog to my Technorati Favorites