July 5, 2012

TheStreet.com dismantles drug company news release “fibs”

Posted By

Tags

Adam Feuerstein of TheStreet.com publishes a lesson for journalists and the public about evaluating claims in pharma/biotech news releases. In “How To Tell When a Drug Company Fibs About Clinical Trial Results,” he writes:

Osiris Therapeutics “disappeared” important data when the company announced results Monday from a mid-stage study of its stem cell therapy Prochymal in heart attack patients.

Naturally, Osiris didn’t come out and tell investors that it was issuing a misleading press release on the Prochymal heart attack study. Instead, the company claimed the study was a success. That’s not true. Figuring out Osiris’ deception wasn’t that difficult if you know how to parse the language of clinical trial results and look at independent sources of information for the truth.

Ride along with me as I pick apart Osiris’ statements regarding the Prochymal heart attack study. Interpreting clinical trial results with a skeptical eye is a crucial tool for all biotech investors, so apply these skills universally whenever a drug or biotech company tries to convince you that its drug works. Hopefully, you’ll find most companies are telling the truth, but sadly and too often, bullish pronouncements about boffo clinical trial data are just spin jobs ginned up to plaster over problems and bad data.

The rest of his column is a clinic. Read it in its entirety.

Comments

Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Comments are closed.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.

You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.

This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.

We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.

There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”

The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.

And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.

The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.