The Lucky Stockbroker Syndrome and other ways to skew medical study results

stockbrokers 2This week, I happened upon an essay in Photon In The Darkness called A Layperson’s Guide to the Scientific Literature. While much of this site looks at the subject of autism and the growth of sensational theories based on individual experiences rather than medical research, there is much here about pseudoscience that certainly helps me, a dull-witted heart attack survivor, understand more about how to interpret ‘research’ that scientists (or their Big Pharma pals, whichever the case may be) publish in medical journals.

For example, this Layperson’s Guide discusses a phenomenon called The Lucky Stockbroker Syndrome that can lead to reinforcement of individual experiences, based on the following analogy:

“A stockbroker decides to try a new money-making scheme. He gets a list of 10,000 potential clients and sends half of them a letter telling them that a certain stock will rise in value over the next week. To the other half of the list, he sends a letter saying that the same stock will fall in value.

“The next week, he sends letters to the half of his list (5,000 people) that got the correct prediction – again, half of them are told that a certain stock will go up in price and the other half are told that the stock price will fall. This goes on for a total of six weeks.

“At the end of this time, he has a list of 156 people who have – by random chance – received six consecutive correct predictions about stock prices. He then offers these people an expensive five-year subscription to his stock-picking service, which they gladly purchase, thinking that he has some amazing system for predicting the stock market.”   Continue reading

A mere $2.3 billion later…

J0211960262As one who has written countless press releases during the decades I worked in public relations, I just love picking through other people’s press releases now.  I can smell a spin a mile away, and I’m always curious about translating the spin back into The Truth when corporations attempt to communicate with the media.

That’s why I laughed right out loud (giving Lily the Lap-Napping Cat a severe fright) when I read Pfizer Inc.’s recent press release about their rosy future ahead partnered with their new BFF, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. Buried in the depths of this rambling release (and didn’t their Communications staff learn in PR school to keep these bloody things to one page max?) is the news that Pfizer has just formed something called an “Executive Compliance Committee”.

Let’s explore what this means.  Pfizer, the world’s biggest drug company, has been in the news lately because of what investigative journalist Ed Silverman on his always-intriguing Pharmalot website describes in this fashion:

“This innovative notion comes hard on the news that Pfizer paid a record-setting, ground-breaking, chair-swiveling, eye-rolling, jaw-dropping, $2.3 billion fine for illegally marketing several drugs, including Bextra, Zyvox, Geodon and Lyrica, over several years – even as other corporate integrity agreements were already in force.” 

Continue reading

Dr. Harriet Hall explains Tooth Fairy Science

tooth fairy girlLet’s say you’re a scientist who wants to do some research on the Tooth Fairy. You could design your study to determine if the Tooth Fairy leaves more money for a tooth left in a plastic baggie under the pillow than for a tooth wrapped in a piece of tissue (as we used to do in our family).  Or you could look at the average amount of money left behind for the first baby tooth to fall out compared to the last tooth.  Or perhaps you might attempt to correlate Tooth Fairy proceeds with the income of the toothless kid’s parents.

None of these would be good research, according to Dr. Harriet Hall, editor of Science-Based Medicine. She explains:

“You can get reliable data that are reproducible, consistent, and statistically significant. You think you have learned something about the Tooth Fairy. But you haven’t. Your data has another explanation, parental behaviour, that you haven’t even considered. You have deceived yourself by trying to do research on something that doesn’t exist.”  Continue reading

Drug marketing by the numbers

  pills more meds please

  • Volume of annual pharmaceutical drug sales worldwide: $733 billion
  • What drug companies spend annually on full page ads in medical journals: $500 million
  • Amount drug industry spent on marketing directly to doctors last year: $7 billion
  • Amount drug industry spent on Direct To Consumer “Ask Your Doctor” ads: $5 billion
  • Hours spent watching TV drug ads last year per person, on average: 30
  • Number of patients who request drugs by name from their doctors each year: 16 million
  • Drug industry’s research and development budget compared with marketing budget: 1/3 to 1/2
  • Ratio of drug reps to doctors in North America: 1 to 2.5
  • Median annual total cash compensation for a drug rep (2008): $96,700
  • Favourable change in a doctor’s prescribing habits after less than 1 minute with a sales rep:  ↑16%
  • Prescribing change seen after 3 minutes with a sales rep:  ↑52%
  • Number of presentations last year where North American doctors paid by drug companies pitched that company’s drug to peers:  237,000
  • Forest Labs’ average payment per speech to 2,000 doctors lecturing about Lexapro: $17,350
  • Biggest legal penalty in U.S. history against Pfizer for unethical drug promotion: $2.38 billion
  • Merck’s advertising budget to launch sales of its painkiller Vioxx: $300 million
  • Annual sales of Vioxx from 1999 to 2004: $2.5 billion
  • Number of deaths due to heart attack or stroke caused by Vioxx before Merck’s recall:  60,000+
  • Number of years that Merck knew about the deadly risks of Vioxx before pulling the drug, according to the Annals of Internal Medicine, 11/23/09:   four

Find out more about drugs you’re taking from the independent Therapeutics Initiative at the University of British Columbia.