explanation?…

Posted on Thursday 4 February 2016

I signed up for STAT on the Boston Globe because Pharmalot moved there. But the new additions to the morning emails these last several days have given me pause. We could use an explanation…


UPDATE: Megan’s response to an email:
Hi Mickey,

They’re simply sponsors for the newsletter — they’re paid advertisements that come from the business end of the publication. I have nothing to do with them, don’t interact with them, and they have no bearing on my content whatsoever. They started showing up because the newsletter has been rolling for a few months now, and in order to pay for the journalism we do, the business team needs to create revenue through advertisements like all other publications.

Thanks,
Megan

  1.  
    February 4, 2016 | 8:38 AM
     

    Thanks for posting, I hadn’t seen that because i read a few STAT articles and went back to reading only whatever Ed tweets at @pharmalot.

  2.  
    February 4, 2016 | 2:55 PM
     

    Well Mickey,

    What’s your ruling.

    Is this a conflict of interest?

    What would you call it if I gave a lecture for CME, unrelated to prescribing but it was sponsored by Big Pharma – even though I had nothing to do with the business end of it?

    I would definitely get listed in Open Payments web site.

    G.

  3.  
    February 4, 2016 | 3:40 PM
     

    Well, I’ve enjoyed her column and it seems kosher. But I wish she’d said it on her own. I wonder if M&Ms or Apple TV would be interested?

    To be serious, there was a time when I would’ve passed right over such a thing, but after the goings on in the last too many years – it’s a different ballgame. As for the listing in the Open Payments website. That’s what it’s for. It’s not a Scarlet A. It’s just a statement of fact, and that fact has been certainly relevant for a long time. I’d personally prefer it be overly sensitive than go the other way.

    In the late sixties during my medicine residency, that would be seen as being a helpful teacher…
    In the mid seventies, it would likely have been seen as benign…
    In 2016, well like I said, your motivation might be the same, but expect some to be wary – even some who aren’t in the ‘activist’ set. That’s the world that my former chairman and others created for us to live with…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.