A paper by Jureidini, McHenry and Mansfield on the subject of Protocol 329. Dr Jureidini, you may remember, was one of the original critics of the paper that the Great Genius Who Is Professor Martin Keller "wrote," back in 2001. The paper is available on Healthy Skepticism, but has attracted attention from Fidders and Clinical Psych, the latter making the particularly pertinent observation that the various statistical shennanigans that took place in order to turn, quite magically, Paxil from a pile of kak into a pile of kak with a bow on top is anything but an isolated incident (although, I find that all magic is based on sleight of hand).
I'm not a statistician, and so I don't fully understand the nature of the argument, although I do understand that changing what one claims to have been looking for, after one has the results in front of one, probably isn't very scientific. No, to quote the Great Genius Who Is Professor Martin Keller, "I'm better with words"! And I'm still struck by the need that James McCafferty (the Paxil Phase 4 project manager, and a SKB employee), perceived to tell Sally Laden (the ghostwriter) that she oughtn't to be making grand claims as to safety, when she was also documenting lots of adverse events.
McCafferty and Rosemary Oakes, a senior statistician at SKB, who worked on the project, got their names on the paper, when it was published. Call me old-fashioned, but I should have thought that having the Company run the trial, crunch the numbers, and then write the paper, informing people of what the numbers meant, before using that paper as an adjunct to a marketing authorization application (and have the regulator accept said paper as valuable evidence), is probably open to abuse. What? Oh, yeah: it was abused, but I should state for legal reasons that it is only my opinion that this was abused. As such, it is merely my opinion that I cannot conceive of a more flagrant fraud.
Matt
Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Friday, 25 April 2008
Book of the Week - The Autumn of the Patriarch
At the suggestion of a friend, this is to be the first in a regular series, wherein I'm going to let you know what I like to read, and maybe why. I'll quote an excerpt, and then you can please yourself whether you go and get yourself a copy!
...When the cataclysm had passed he still heard the distant music of the windless afternoon, he went on killing mosquitoes and with the same slaps trying to kill the katydids in his ears which hindered him in his thinking, he still saw the light of the fires on the horizon, the lighthouse that tinted him with green every thirty seconds through the slits in the blinds, the natural breathing of daily life which was getting to be the same again while his death was changing into a different death more like so many others in the past, the incessant torrent of reality which was carrying him off toward the no man's land of compassion and oblivion, God damn it, fuck death he exclaimed, and then he left his hiding place exalted by the certainty that his grandest hour had struck, he went through the sacked salons dragging his thick phantom feet in the midst of the ruins of his former life in the shadows that smelled of dying flowers and burial candlewicks, he pushed open the door of the cabinet room, heard through the smoky air the thin voices around the long walnut table, and saw through the smoke that all the ones he wanted to be there were there, the liberals who had sold the federalist war, the conservatives who had bought it, the generals of the high command, three of his cabinet ministers, the archbishop primate and the Ambassador Schontner, all together in the one single plot calling for the unity of all against the despotism of centuries so that they could divide up among themselves the booty of his death, so absorbed in the depths of greed that no one noticed the appearance of the unburied president who gave a single blow with the palm of his hand on the table, and shouted aha! and that was all he had to do, for when he lifted his hand from the table the stampede of panic was over and all that was left in the room were the overflowing ashtrays, the coffee mugs, the chairs flung on the floor, and my comrade of a lifetime General Rodrigo de Aguilar in battle dress, minute, impassive, wafting away the smoke with his one hand and indicating to him to drop to the floor general sir because now the fun is going to begin, and they both dropped to the floor at the instant the machine guns' death jubilation started up by the front of the building, the butcher feast of the presidential guard who with great pleasure and great honor general sir carried out his fierce orders that no one should escape alive from the meeting where treason was being hatched...
I'm a big fan of Marquez. I don't know what made me think of this book, though. Something to do with deception and illusion, perhaps? It's a recurring theme, of late. Perhaps somebody should have realized before now that when a tyrant takes charge, he spends his time in power turning his dominion into a replica of himself. Just think what Mugabe's mind looks like. How he neglects himself - or most of himself, anyway!
...When the cataclysm had passed he still heard the distant music of the windless afternoon, he went on killing mosquitoes and with the same slaps trying to kill the katydids in his ears which hindered him in his thinking, he still saw the light of the fires on the horizon, the lighthouse that tinted him with green every thirty seconds through the slits in the blinds, the natural breathing of daily life which was getting to be the same again while his death was changing into a different death more like so many others in the past, the incessant torrent of reality which was carrying him off toward the no man's land of compassion and oblivion, God damn it, fuck death he exclaimed, and then he left his hiding place exalted by the certainty that his grandest hour had struck, he went through the sacked salons dragging his thick phantom feet in the midst of the ruins of his former life in the shadows that smelled of dying flowers and burial candlewicks, he pushed open the door of the cabinet room, heard through the smoky air the thin voices around the long walnut table, and saw through the smoke that all the ones he wanted to be there were there, the liberals who had sold the federalist war, the conservatives who had bought it, the generals of the high command, three of his cabinet ministers, the archbishop primate and the Ambassador Schontner, all together in the one single plot calling for the unity of all against the despotism of centuries so that they could divide up among themselves the booty of his death, so absorbed in the depths of greed that no one noticed the appearance of the unburied president who gave a single blow with the palm of his hand on the table, and shouted aha! and that was all he had to do, for when he lifted his hand from the table the stampede of panic was over and all that was left in the room were the overflowing ashtrays, the coffee mugs, the chairs flung on the floor, and my comrade of a lifetime General Rodrigo de Aguilar in battle dress, minute, impassive, wafting away the smoke with his one hand and indicating to him to drop to the floor general sir because now the fun is going to begin, and they both dropped to the floor at the instant the machine guns' death jubilation started up by the front of the building, the butcher feast of the presidential guard who with great pleasure and great honor general sir carried out his fierce orders that no one should escape alive from the meeting where treason was being hatched...
I'm a big fan of Marquez. I don't know what made me think of this book, though. Something to do with deception and illusion, perhaps? It's a recurring theme, of late. Perhaps somebody should have realized before now that when a tyrant takes charge, he spends his time in power turning his dominion into a replica of himself. Just think what Mugabe's mind looks like. How he neglects himself - or most of himself, anyway!
Thursday, 24 April 2008
Romance de la Guardia Civil espanola
Cohen has often cited Lorca as his major influence, so I thought I'd drop this in:
Los caballos negros son.
Las herraduras son negras.
Sobre las capas relucen
manchas de tinta y de cera.
Tienen, por eso no lloran,
de plomo las calaveras.
Con el alma de charol
vienen por la carretera.
Jorobados y nocturnos,
por donde animan ordenan
silencios de goma oscura
y miedos de fina arena.
Pasan, si quieren pasar,
y ocultan en la cabeza
una vaga astronomía
de pistolas inconcretas.
*
¡Oh ciudad de los gitanos!
En las esquinas banderas.
La luna y la calabaza
con las guindas en conserva.
¡Oh ciudad de los gitanos!
¿Quién te vió y no te recuerda?
Ciudad de dolor y almizcle,
con las torres de canela.
*
Cuando llegaba la noche,
noche que noche nochera,
los gitanos en sus fraguas
forjaban soles y flechas.
Un caballo malherido,
llamaba a todas las puertas.
Gallos de vidrio cantaban
por Jerez de la Frontera.
El viento, vuelve desnudo
la esquina de la sorpresa,
en la noche platinoche
noche, que noche nochera.
*
La Virgen y San José
perdieron sus castañuelas,
y buscan a los gitanos
para ver si las encuentran.
La Virgen viene vestida
con un traje de alcaldesa,
de papel de chocolate
con los collares de almendras.
San José mueve los brazos
bajo una capa de seda.
Detrás va Pedro Domecq
con tres sultanes de Persia.
La media luna, soñaba
un éxtasis de cigüeña.
Estandartes y faroles
invaden las azoteas.
Por los espejos sollozan
bailarinas sin caderas.
Agua y sombra, sombra y agua
por Jerez de la Frontera.
*
¡Oh ciudad de los gitanos!
En las esquinas banderas.
Apaga tus verdes luces
que viene la benemérita.
¡Oh ciudad de los gitanos!
¿Quién te vio y no te recuerda?
Dejadla lejos del mar,
sin peines para sus crenchas.
*
Avanzan de dos en fondo
a la ciudad de la fiesta.
Un rumor de siemprevivas
invade las cartucheras.
Avanzan de dos en fondo.
Doble nocturno de tela.
El cielo, se les antoja,
una vitrina de espuelas.
*
La ciudad libre de miedo,
multiplicaba sus puertas.
Cuarenta guardias civiles
entran a saco por ellas.
Los relojes se pararon,
y el coñac de las botellas
se disfrazó de noviembre
para no infundir sospechas.
Un vuelo de gritos largos
se levantó en las veletas.
Los sables cortan las brisas
que los cascos atropellan.
Por las calles de penumbra
huyen las gitanas viejas
con los caballos dormidos
y las orzas de monedas.
Por las calles empinadas
suben las capas siniestras,
dejando detrás fugaces
remolinos de tijeras.
En el portal de Belén
los gitanos se congregan.
San José, lleno de heridas,
amortaja a una doncella.
Tercos fusiles agudos
por toda la noche suenan.
La Virgen cura a los niños
con salivilla de estrella.
Pero la Guardia Civil
avanza sembrando hogueras,
donde joven y desnuda
la imaginación se quema.
Rosa la de los Camborios,
gime sentada en su puerta
con sus dos pechos cortados
puestos en una bandeja.
Y otras muchachas corrían
perseguidas por sus trenzas,
en un aire donde estallan
rosas de pólvora negra.
Cuando todos los tejados
eran surcos en la tierra,
el alba meció sus hombros
en largo perfil de piedra.
*
¡Oh, ciudad de los gitanos!
La Guardia Civil se aleja
por un túnel de silencio
mientras las llamas te cercan.
¡Oh, ciudad de los gitanos!
¿Quién te vio y no te recuerda?
Que te busquen en mi frente.
juego de luna y arena.
(1928)
Los caballos negros son.
Las herraduras son negras.
Sobre las capas relucen
manchas de tinta y de cera.
Tienen, por eso no lloran,
de plomo las calaveras.
Con el alma de charol
vienen por la carretera.
Jorobados y nocturnos,
por donde animan ordenan
silencios de goma oscura
y miedos de fina arena.
Pasan, si quieren pasar,
y ocultan en la cabeza
una vaga astronomía
de pistolas inconcretas.
*
¡Oh ciudad de los gitanos!
En las esquinas banderas.
La luna y la calabaza
con las guindas en conserva.
¡Oh ciudad de los gitanos!
¿Quién te vió y no te recuerda?
Ciudad de dolor y almizcle,
con las torres de canela.
*
Cuando llegaba la noche,
noche que noche nochera,
los gitanos en sus fraguas
forjaban soles y flechas.
Un caballo malherido,
llamaba a todas las puertas.
Gallos de vidrio cantaban
por Jerez de la Frontera.
El viento, vuelve desnudo
la esquina de la sorpresa,
en la noche platinoche
noche, que noche nochera.
*
La Virgen y San José
perdieron sus castañuelas,
y buscan a los gitanos
para ver si las encuentran.
La Virgen viene vestida
con un traje de alcaldesa,
de papel de chocolate
con los collares de almendras.
San José mueve los brazos
bajo una capa de seda.
Detrás va Pedro Domecq
con tres sultanes de Persia.
La media luna, soñaba
un éxtasis de cigüeña.
Estandartes y faroles
invaden las azoteas.
Por los espejos sollozan
bailarinas sin caderas.
Agua y sombra, sombra y agua
por Jerez de la Frontera.
*
¡Oh ciudad de los gitanos!
En las esquinas banderas.
Apaga tus verdes luces
que viene la benemérita.
¡Oh ciudad de los gitanos!
¿Quién te vio y no te recuerda?
Dejadla lejos del mar,
sin peines para sus crenchas.
*
Avanzan de dos en fondo
a la ciudad de la fiesta.
Un rumor de siemprevivas
invade las cartucheras.
Avanzan de dos en fondo.
Doble nocturno de tela.
El cielo, se les antoja,
una vitrina de espuelas.
*
La ciudad libre de miedo,
multiplicaba sus puertas.
Cuarenta guardias civiles
entran a saco por ellas.
Los relojes se pararon,
y el coñac de las botellas
se disfrazó de noviembre
para no infundir sospechas.
Un vuelo de gritos largos
se levantó en las veletas.
Los sables cortan las brisas
que los cascos atropellan.
Por las calles de penumbra
huyen las gitanas viejas
con los caballos dormidos
y las orzas de monedas.
Por las calles empinadas
suben las capas siniestras,
dejando detrás fugaces
remolinos de tijeras.
En el portal de Belén
los gitanos se congregan.
San José, lleno de heridas,
amortaja a una doncella.
Tercos fusiles agudos
por toda la noche suenan.
La Virgen cura a los niños
con salivilla de estrella.
Pero la Guardia Civil
avanza sembrando hogueras,
donde joven y desnuda
la imaginación se quema.
Rosa la de los Camborios,
gime sentada en su puerta
con sus dos pechos cortados
puestos en una bandeja.
Y otras muchachas corrían
perseguidas por sus trenzas,
en un aire donde estallan
rosas de pólvora negra.
Cuando todos los tejados
eran surcos en la tierra,
el alba meció sus hombros
en largo perfil de piedra.
*
¡Oh, ciudad de los gitanos!
La Guardia Civil se aleja
por un túnel de silencio
mientras las llamas te cercan.
¡Oh, ciudad de los gitanos!
¿Quién te vio y no te recuerda?
Que te busquen en mi frente.
juego de luna y arena.
(1928)
Wednesday, 23 April 2008
A Thousand Kisses Deep
There's something elegant in Cohen's words that it's probably not worth defining. Anyway, I like this poem, with its hat tip to Robert Frost.
1. You came to me this morning
And you handled me like meat.
You´d have to live alone to know
How good that feels, how sweet.
My mirror twin, my next of kin,
I´d know you in my sleep.
And who but you would take me in
A thousand kisses deep?
2. I loved you when you opened
Like a lily to the heat.
I´m just another snowman
Standing in the rain and sleet,
Who loved you with his frozen love
His second-hand physique -
With all he is, and all he was
A thousand kisses deep.
3. All soaked in sex, and pressed against
The limits of the sea:
I saw there were no oceans left
For scavengers like me.
We made it to the forward deck
I blessed our remnant fleet -
And then consented to be wrecked
A thousand kisses deep.
4. I know you had to lie to me,
I know you had to cheat.
But the Means no longer guarantee
The Virtue in Deceit.
That truth is bent, that beauty spent,
That style is obsolete -
Ever since the Holy Spirit went
A thousand kisses deep.
5. (So what about this Inner Light
That´s boundless and unique?
I´m slouching through another night
A thousand kisses deep.)
6. I´m turning tricks; I´m getting fixed,
I´m back on Boogie Street.
I tried to quit the business -
Hey, I´m lazy and I´m weak.
But sometimes when the night is slow,
The wretched and the meek,
We gather up our hearts and go
A thousand kisses deep.
7. (And fragrant is the thought of you,
The file on you complete -
Except what we forgot to do
A thousand kisses deep.)
8. The ponies run, the girls are young,
The odds are there to beat.
You win a while, and then it´s done -
Your little winning streak.
And summoned now to deal
With your invincible defeat,
You live your life as if it´s real
A thousand kisses deep.
9. (I jammed with Diz and Dante -
I did not have their sweep -
But once or twice, they let me play
A thousand kisses deep.)
10. And I´m still working with the wine,
Still dancing cheek to cheek.
The band is playing "Auld Lang Syne" -
The heart will not retreat.
And maybe I had miles to drive,
And promises to keep -
You ditch it all to stay alive
A thousand kisses deep.
11. And now you are the Angel Death
And now the Paraclete;
And now you are the Savior's Breath
And now the Belsen heap.
No turning from the threat of love,
No transcendental leap -
As witnessed here in time and blood
A thousand kisses deep.
(Source: The Leonard Cohen Files)
Addendum:
I like the way this has been done. And, coincidence or not, I think the last Dali in the series, "The Persistence of Memory," is particularly poignant.
1. You came to me this morning
And you handled me like meat.
You´d have to live alone to know
How good that feels, how sweet.
My mirror twin, my next of kin,
I´d know you in my sleep.
And who but you would take me in
A thousand kisses deep?
2. I loved you when you opened
Like a lily to the heat.
I´m just another snowman
Standing in the rain and sleet,
Who loved you with his frozen love
His second-hand physique -
With all he is, and all he was
A thousand kisses deep.
3. All soaked in sex, and pressed against
The limits of the sea:
I saw there were no oceans left
For scavengers like me.
We made it to the forward deck
I blessed our remnant fleet -
And then consented to be wrecked
A thousand kisses deep.
4. I know you had to lie to me,
I know you had to cheat.
But the Means no longer guarantee
The Virtue in Deceit.
That truth is bent, that beauty spent,
That style is obsolete -
Ever since the Holy Spirit went
A thousand kisses deep.
5. (So what about this Inner Light
That´s boundless and unique?
I´m slouching through another night
A thousand kisses deep.)
6. I´m turning tricks; I´m getting fixed,
I´m back on Boogie Street.
I tried to quit the business -
Hey, I´m lazy and I´m weak.
But sometimes when the night is slow,
The wretched and the meek,
We gather up our hearts and go
A thousand kisses deep.
7. (And fragrant is the thought of you,
The file on you complete -
Except what we forgot to do
A thousand kisses deep.)
8. The ponies run, the girls are young,
The odds are there to beat.
You win a while, and then it´s done -
Your little winning streak.
And summoned now to deal
With your invincible defeat,
You live your life as if it´s real
A thousand kisses deep.
9. (I jammed with Diz and Dante -
I did not have their sweep -
But once or twice, they let me play
A thousand kisses deep.)
10. And I´m still working with the wine,
Still dancing cheek to cheek.
The band is playing "Auld Lang Syne" -
The heart will not retreat.
And maybe I had miles to drive,
And promises to keep -
You ditch it all to stay alive
A thousand kisses deep.
11. And now you are the Angel Death
And now the Paraclete;
And now you are the Savior's Breath
And now the Belsen heap.
No turning from the threat of love,
No transcendental leap -
As witnessed here in time and blood
A thousand kisses deep.
(Source: The Leonard Cohen Files)
Addendum:
I like the way this has been done. And, coincidence or not, I think the last Dali in the series, "The Persistence of Memory," is particularly poignant.
Monday, 21 April 2008
Fluoxetine - Part III
I thought about writing a caustic preamble to this latest missive from the MHRA, but then the whole thing's so fucking tedious that, frankly, I felt that it was beneath me to devote the requisite mental energy for a truly lacerating introduction. Anyway, the MHRA has nothing to say. Seemingly, it is a body with no knowledge and no ideas, and no hope of securing either of those things. Either that, or it's as corrupt as fuck. This to the Ministry of Truth, copied to Vara, blind copied to lots of people (the MHRA's Great Words of Wisdom are emboldened, as usual):
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for your prompt reply, and for taking patient concerns over the drugs that they use so seriously. Particularly those patients who are giving you earache over drugs that they believe to be snake oil remedies.
The issue of the way in which the MHRA assesses drugs is a new one, in that the MHRA has not chosen ever to answer the query, in the first place. I don't believe that the way in which drugs are assessed for marketing in the UK could be any more substantive. Perhaps you could give me a checklist of "substantive" items that the MHRA would be prepared to answer - it has already refused to confirm its assessment process, and the benefit to be taken from both fluoxetine and paroxetine? Frankly, I'm struggling to understand what it will discuss.
In fact, on that note, I rather suspect that the MHRA has nothing at all to discuss with me, on any subject. And I rather think I know why, but that would be for another day. Regrettably, that means that I have nothing to discuss with you (pl), because that seems to be the only level of agreement that we can reach. I regret that your methodology is anything but sophisticated - tant bloody pis!
Best regards
Matthew Holford
***********************************
Subject: RE: FOI 08/064 - FW: Fluoxetine
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:04:43 +0100
From: info@mhra.gsi.gov.uk
To: m.holford@hotmail.co.uk
Dear Mr Holford
Thank you for your e-mail of 19 March.
You reference one of the documents we previously sent you, and in particular the phrase "if used in its specified way"; and ask whether this phrase was included by a scientist or a lawyer. The document which you refer to was in fact developed through a consultation process which included people working for the MHRA itself as well as a range of stakeholders from outside the Agency (including patients and consumers). To attribute any one particular phrase or part of the document to a specific individual is therefore difficult and potentially misleading.
In relation to the other questions you pose, we have nothing to add to our earlier response. Unless you raise substantive new matters, we will not be responding to further correspondence on this issue.
Kind regards
MHRA Information Centre
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for your prompt reply, and for taking patient concerns over the drugs that they use so seriously. Particularly those patients who are giving you earache over drugs that they believe to be snake oil remedies.
The issue of the way in which the MHRA assesses drugs is a new one, in that the MHRA has not chosen ever to answer the query, in the first place. I don't believe that the way in which drugs are assessed for marketing in the UK could be any more substantive. Perhaps you could give me a checklist of "substantive" items that the MHRA would be prepared to answer - it has already refused to confirm its assessment process, and the benefit to be taken from both fluoxetine and paroxetine? Frankly, I'm struggling to understand what it will discuss.
In fact, on that note, I rather suspect that the MHRA has nothing at all to discuss with me, on any subject. And I rather think I know why, but that would be for another day. Regrettably, that means that I have nothing to discuss with you (pl), because that seems to be the only level of agreement that we can reach. I regret that your methodology is anything but sophisticated - tant bloody pis!
Best regards
Matthew Holford
***********************************
Subject: RE: FOI 08/064 - FW: Fluoxetine
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:04:43 +0100
From: info@mhra.gsi.gov.uk
To: m.holford@hotmail.co.uk
Dear Mr Holford
Thank you for your e-mail of 19 March.
You reference one of the documents we previously sent you, and in particular the phrase "if used in its specified way"; and ask whether this phrase was included by a scientist or a lawyer. The document which you refer to was in fact developed through a consultation process which included people working for the MHRA itself as well as a range of stakeholders from outside the Agency (including patients and consumers). To attribute any one particular phrase or part of the document to a specific individual is therefore difficult and potentially misleading.
In relation to the other questions you pose, we have nothing to add to our earlier response. Unless you raise substantive new matters, we will not be responding to further correspondence on this issue.
Kind regards
MHRA Information Centre
Friday, 18 April 2008
MHRA - Has the penny finally dropped?
Fidders has been intrigued by the apparent confluence and coincidence of interest shown by the D'oh, the MHRA and GSK's lawyers (please see the link, below). I thought it would be quite a sweet idea to contact Steptoe's, and put a human face on patient dissent! This to Andrew Bloom, a partner at Steptoe's, copied to Fidders and Breckenridge, blind copied to lots of people:
From: m.holford@hotmail.co.uk
To: abloom@steptoe.com
CC: [redacted]@blueyonder.co.uk; [redacted]@mhra.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: MHRA - Has the penny finally dropped?
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:41:11 +0000
Dear Andrew,
I wonder if you could forward this email to the person responsible for "reviewing" Mr Fiddaman's blog?
Perhaps you will be aware that staff at the MHRA have been forbidden from visiting the site, aside from one or two authorized persons, that is? We are interested at the correlation between visits by the MHRA, Steptoe's and the D'oh. We are also interested in that, whilst it ought to be trivial for the MHRA to have its IT people establish which user station it is that is visiting Mr Fiddaman's site, it appears not to be concerned with the breach of its own ban. Plus ca change, plus ca le meme chose, I imagine!
MHRA - Has the penny finally dropped?
In any event, I am concerned that there is an inequality of bargaining power, here. That is to say, we have significantly more knowledge in this area than you do. We regret this state of affairs with all the sincerity that our hearts have to offer you. If you are interested in having the deficiency in your intelligence remedied, we would be happy to oblige.
Howsoever it may be, you will have noted, I imagine, that Mr Fiddaman is doing nothing other than describing the world from his perspective, as are we all, I imagine. We would regret any attempt by Steptoe's to try to characterize it in any other way. I trust that we understand one another. Incidentally, if you believe that you have won an argument with us, at any point, please advise, and we will be happy to disabuse you. We imagine that you are very bright guys, but you are not in our league. Kindly do not contradict me on that point.
Finally, I would be grateful if you would not take to making allegations of defamation, harassment, and whatnot, in our direction. It's really quite tiresome. And untrue. As I wrote, before, we are merely describing the world from our perspective. How you receive our perspective is a matter for you to address, not us.
Best regards
Matthew Holford
From: m.holford@hotmail.co.uk
To: abloom@steptoe.com
CC: [redacted]@blueyonder.co.uk; [redacted]@mhra.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: MHRA - Has the penny finally dropped?
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:41:11 +0000
Dear Andrew,
I wonder if you could forward this email to the person responsible for "reviewing" Mr Fiddaman's blog?
Perhaps you will be aware that staff at the MHRA have been forbidden from visiting the site, aside from one or two authorized persons, that is? We are interested at the correlation between visits by the MHRA, Steptoe's and the D'oh. We are also interested in that, whilst it ought to be trivial for the MHRA to have its IT people establish which user station it is that is visiting Mr Fiddaman's site, it appears not to be concerned with the breach of its own ban. Plus ca change, plus ca le meme chose, I imagine!
MHRA - Has the penny finally dropped?
In any event, I am concerned that there is an inequality of bargaining power, here. That is to say, we have significantly more knowledge in this area than you do. We regret this state of affairs with all the sincerity that our hearts have to offer you. If you are interested in having the deficiency in your intelligence remedied, we would be happy to oblige.
Howsoever it may be, you will have noted, I imagine, that Mr Fiddaman is doing nothing other than describing the world from his perspective, as are we all, I imagine. We would regret any attempt by Steptoe's to try to characterize it in any other way. I trust that we understand one another. Incidentally, if you believe that you have won an argument with us, at any point, please advise, and we will be happy to disabuse you. We imagine that you are very bright guys, but you are not in our league. Kindly do not contradict me on that point.
Finally, I would be grateful if you would not take to making allegations of defamation, harassment, and whatnot, in our direction. It's really quite tiresome. And untrue. As I wrote, before, we are merely describing the world from our perspective. How you receive our perspective is a matter for you to address, not us.
Best regards
Matthew Holford
Monday, 14 April 2008
Genius: there's no other word for it - Part VIII
To be fair, there are plenty of Paul Simon songs I could have chosen. "Bernadette," because the tempo changes every few bars, for example. But this is Simon at his best, I think.
Wednesday, 9 April 2008
McLibel Revisited or Don't Look Back in Anger
I've had one or two complimentary things said about a few of the comments that I posted on the Pharmalot thread about the Bob Fiddaman intimidation thing. I, and one or two other people were a little disappointed that the discussion was often diverted towards the usual dichotomous "Pharma's excellent/No it's not, it's shit" argument. Being a lawyer, albeit an academic one, I saw the argument as being largely legal in its nature.
There appears to be an almost identical precedent to hand, in order that we might instruct ourselves as to any outcome, should GSK be stupid enough to pursue this to court. Yup, it's McLibel. So, I've decided to quickly run through what happened in McLibel, and then people can draw the parallels for themselves. If you want to check the accuracy of Bob's claims, then the information's on the internet. If you want to clarify the inconsistencies with the "powers" that be, which Bob has highlighted, then I suspect that you can go whistle, which is what we've been told to do, pretty consistently.
McLibel Revisited
By way of preamble, McLibel centres on a confrontation between two activists, Dave Steel and Helen Morris, over the circulation of a pamphlet, entitled "What's Wrong with McDonalds?" and McDonalds itself. A series of allegations was made in the pamphlet, which you can read for yourself, here. In brief, they concerned deforestation of the Amazon for beef farming, treatment of employees, the nutritional value of the product, exploitation of children through targeted marketing, and so on, and so on.
Ronald, it seems, didn't take kindly to this, and brought a libel action against the five London Greenpeace (not to be confused with Greenpeace), activists who had produced and distributed the pamphlet, as I understand it. The five were targeted, because London Greenpeace had no corporate identity to pursue (ie, it was just a name that a bunch of people had chosen for their loose-knit organization). Most backed down, but Steel and Morris decided to tough it out. The trial turned into the longest in English legal history, but provided massively valuable legal precedent, which Bob Fiddaman, myself and others are only too happy to exploit. Helen Steel and Dave Morris, we salute you!
I won't go into the minutiae of the discussion. Libel trials, being what they are, centre on questions of fact (ie, the only complete defence in libel is that what one has said is true, and it is incumbent upon defendants to demonstrate the truth of their assertions). Because of the hugely technical nature of demonstrating, say, that McDonalds was responsible to a certain extent for the deforestation of the Amazon, this was obviously a lengthy debate.
Now, because of the technical nature of the debate, it was accepted by the Court that McDonalds was correct to argue that ordinary people would not be able to comprehend the scientific nature of the discussion, and thus the trial was heard by His Honour, Mr Justice Bell, alone (ie, unlike your average libel trial, there was to be no jury). Also, as a matter of public policy, no Legal Aid is available for libel cases, and so the defendants had to fund their defence from their own resources and from donations from the public. Pay attention, here, because this becomes relevant about two years' later!
At the end of the High Court trial, the judge ruled that McDonalds did 'exploit children' with their advertising, produce 'misleading' advertising, are 'culpably responsible' for cruelty to animals, are 'antipathetic' to unionisation and pay their workers low wages. However, because the defendants had failed to demonstrate the truth of all their allegations the Judge ruled that they HAD libelled McDonald's and should pay GBP60k in damages. They refused and McDonald's chose not to pursue it.
The defendants appealed against the High Court decision and in March, 1999 the Court of Appeal made further rulings that it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide "do badly in terms of pay and conditions", and true that "if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease.
Steel and Morris were on a roll! They took their case to the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg, arguing that their right to a fair trial and their right to freedom of speech had been transgressed by the UK legal system. And they won, again. In brief, the public interest privilege that had been the sole perquisite of the press was extended to the public, generally. That is, provided one is not malicious, one may comment freely on a matter pertaining to the public interest. And seeing as the public interest appears to amount to "what interests the public," one may say what one chooses. The absence of Legal Aid was also criticized - there was no equality of position between plaintiff and defendant. Read the judgment, here, if you want the detail.
None of this means that one can recklessly and wantonly make impressionistic claims that impact upon the reputation of others, of course. Even if a person has contradicted themselves in public, or whose actions or pronouncements are full of inconsistencies, it is better to say that they are full of inconsistencies, rather than say outright that they are liars and hypocrites. If one wishes to say that they are liars and hypocrites, one should make it clear that it is one's opinion, based upon the facts available, because we are still permitted to hold opinions, in this country, if only just.
However, where one relies upon sources that ought to be reliable, and draws inferences based upon the information available there, then one is within the libel laws of England and Wales. And that, my friends, is really all there is to it.
Matt
There appears to be an almost identical precedent to hand, in order that we might instruct ourselves as to any outcome, should GSK be stupid enough to pursue this to court. Yup, it's McLibel. So, I've decided to quickly run through what happened in McLibel, and then people can draw the parallels for themselves. If you want to check the accuracy of Bob's claims, then the information's on the internet. If you want to clarify the inconsistencies with the "powers" that be, which Bob has highlighted, then I suspect that you can go whistle, which is what we've been told to do, pretty consistently.
McLibel Revisited
By way of preamble, McLibel centres on a confrontation between two activists, Dave Steel and Helen Morris, over the circulation of a pamphlet, entitled "What's Wrong with McDonalds?" and McDonalds itself. A series of allegations was made in the pamphlet, which you can read for yourself, here. In brief, they concerned deforestation of the Amazon for beef farming, treatment of employees, the nutritional value of the product, exploitation of children through targeted marketing, and so on, and so on.
Ronald, it seems, didn't take kindly to this, and brought a libel action against the five London Greenpeace (not to be confused with Greenpeace), activists who had produced and distributed the pamphlet, as I understand it. The five were targeted, because London Greenpeace had no corporate identity to pursue (ie, it was just a name that a bunch of people had chosen for their loose-knit organization). Most backed down, but Steel and Morris decided to tough it out. The trial turned into the longest in English legal history, but provided massively valuable legal precedent, which Bob Fiddaman, myself and others are only too happy to exploit. Helen Steel and Dave Morris, we salute you!
I won't go into the minutiae of the discussion. Libel trials, being what they are, centre on questions of fact (ie, the only complete defence in libel is that what one has said is true, and it is incumbent upon defendants to demonstrate the truth of their assertions). Because of the hugely technical nature of demonstrating, say, that McDonalds was responsible to a certain extent for the deforestation of the Amazon, this was obviously a lengthy debate.
Now, because of the technical nature of the debate, it was accepted by the Court that McDonalds was correct to argue that ordinary people would not be able to comprehend the scientific nature of the discussion, and thus the trial was heard by His Honour, Mr Justice Bell, alone (ie, unlike your average libel trial, there was to be no jury). Also, as a matter of public policy, no Legal Aid is available for libel cases, and so the defendants had to fund their defence from their own resources and from donations from the public. Pay attention, here, because this becomes relevant about two years' later!
At the end of the High Court trial, the judge ruled that McDonalds did 'exploit children' with their advertising, produce 'misleading' advertising, are 'culpably responsible' for cruelty to animals, are 'antipathetic' to unionisation and pay their workers low wages. However, because the defendants had failed to demonstrate the truth of all their allegations the Judge ruled that they HAD libelled McDonald's and should pay GBP60k in damages. They refused and McDonald's chose not to pursue it.
The defendants appealed against the High Court decision and in March, 1999 the Court of Appeal made further rulings that it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide "do badly in terms of pay and conditions", and true that "if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease.
Steel and Morris were on a roll! They took their case to the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg, arguing that their right to a fair trial and their right to freedom of speech had been transgressed by the UK legal system. And they won, again. In brief, the public interest privilege that had been the sole perquisite of the press was extended to the public, generally. That is, provided one is not malicious, one may comment freely on a matter pertaining to the public interest. And seeing as the public interest appears to amount to "what interests the public," one may say what one chooses. The absence of Legal Aid was also criticized - there was no equality of position between plaintiff and defendant. Read the judgment, here, if you want the detail.
None of this means that one can recklessly and wantonly make impressionistic claims that impact upon the reputation of others, of course. Even if a person has contradicted themselves in public, or whose actions or pronouncements are full of inconsistencies, it is better to say that they are full of inconsistencies, rather than say outright that they are liars and hypocrites. If one wishes to say that they are liars and hypocrites, one should make it clear that it is one's opinion, based upon the facts available, because we are still permitted to hold opinions, in this country, if only just.
However, where one relies upon sources that ought to be reliable, and draws inferences based upon the information available there, then one is within the libel laws of England and Wales. And that, my friends, is really all there is to it.
Matt
Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Dealing with online bigotry
I thought that this was quite instructive. Do you see, Cat? We have a methodology for people like you. So play nicely. OK?
Friday, 4 April 2008
I've just posted this as a comment...
...on the Pharmalot thread that covers the Bob Fiddaman intimidation story, and I thought it summed up my position so succinctly that I'd post it, here, too:
Former pharma Marketing Exec wrote:
“…In the end, when you connect all the dots - and the dots always get connected - you can actually see the extent the management went to in order to cover up and deceive the very market they serve. The patients, their own scientific advisory board, their KOL’s…”
Yes, and yet, despite this evident and flagrant abuse of trust, it seems that no significant effort is being made to remedy the deficiencies of the system that permitted it to happen, in the first place. There will be a bit of superficial tweaking, obviously, but there will be no attempt to change the culture of secrecy and blind eye.
There is no argument, here: the drug doesn’t work in any but the tiniest proportion of depressed people. And it’s dangerous. The Company knew both these things, but continued to press the drug on an unwitting public. The only thing that saves GSK from a very public humiliation in the criminal courts, is, I suspect “the public interest,” as perceived.
That is, I imagine, the damage to the UK economy (loss of jobs - and people are already being laid off in Eire, where the drug is manufactured), and, more pointedly, loss of public confidence in a lie that should never have been peddled, when there is no alternative treatment that people are willing to consider, are the things that will be used as justification for doing nothing meaningful, at all. Meanwhile, people such as Bob Fiddaman will continue to receive shitty letters from halfwit lawyers on behalf of mealy-mouthed jobsworths.
Shit sticks. The things that GSK (and its regulators), would have to do in order to restore public trust are unconscionable for people with the mindset that these people have. It would mean that they have to admit that they were wrong - and they’ve positioned themselves such that that is not a possibility.
Matt
Former pharma Marketing Exec wrote:
“…In the end, when you connect all the dots - and the dots always get connected - you can actually see the extent the management went to in order to cover up and deceive the very market they serve. The patients, their own scientific advisory board, their KOL’s…”
Yes, and yet, despite this evident and flagrant abuse of trust, it seems that no significant effort is being made to remedy the deficiencies of the system that permitted it to happen, in the first place. There will be a bit of superficial tweaking, obviously, but there will be no attempt to change the culture of secrecy and blind eye.
There is no argument, here: the drug doesn’t work in any but the tiniest proportion of depressed people. And it’s dangerous. The Company knew both these things, but continued to press the drug on an unwitting public. The only thing that saves GSK from a very public humiliation in the criminal courts, is, I suspect “the public interest,” as perceived.
That is, I imagine, the damage to the UK economy (loss of jobs - and people are already being laid off in Eire, where the drug is manufactured), and, more pointedly, loss of public confidence in a lie that should never have been peddled, when there is no alternative treatment that people are willing to consider, are the things that will be used as justification for doing nothing meaningful, at all. Meanwhile, people such as Bob Fiddaman will continue to receive shitty letters from halfwit lawyers on behalf of mealy-mouthed jobsworths.
Shit sticks. The things that GSK (and its regulators), would have to do in order to restore public trust are unconscionable for people with the mindset that these people have. It would mean that they have to admit that they were wrong - and they’ve positioned themselves such that that is not a possibility.
Matt
Wednesday, 2 April 2008
Amusingly...
...I appear to have been targeted by a troll, although it's interesting that (s)he has chosen my "Dear Doctor" posting as his/her point of attack. I'm assuming, for the time being, that we are just talking about the one, signing in under different names, but one never knows, does one?
It's interesting: I've noticed how pissed off we get when the MHRA/GSK/D'oh/our MPs ignore us, or provide us with shit responses, so I'm going to entertain myself by giving the Cat, as (s)he calls him/herself, plenty of TLC. It is my anticipation that the Cat has been starved of love and affection, and understands that it is appropriate to make threats, and so on, anonymously, on other people's blogs.
Being the person that I am, I don't feel particularly threatened when a person expresses the desire to see me squirm. I have a way of turning the tables. Some people just never learn.
Matt
It's interesting: I've noticed how pissed off we get when the MHRA/GSK/D'oh/our MPs ignore us, or provide us with shit responses, so I'm going to entertain myself by giving the Cat, as (s)he calls him/herself, plenty of TLC. It is my anticipation that the Cat has been starved of love and affection, and understands that it is appropriate to make threats, and so on, anonymously, on other people's blogs.
Being the person that I am, I don't feel particularly threatened when a person expresses the desire to see me squirm. I have a way of turning the tables. Some people just never learn.
Matt
Scientific Misconduct Blog: It's Groundhog Day for bullying by GlaxoSmithKline over Seroxat
Scientific Misconduct Blog: It's Groundhog Day for bullying by GlaxoSmithKline over Seroxat
Just in case GSK's lapdogs come a-calling on me, I've decided to take the video down (although plenty of the links below carry it, if you fancy a look). I've sought some advice on this subject, and this is best summed up with a message from our sponsor!
Related Links:
AHRP - Video sets Glaxosmithkline hounds to intimidate British blogger
Bipolar Blast - Glaxo Smith Kline
BLOGSCAN - GSK Lawyers Have Paxil Video Taken Down
Clinical Psych - Does GSK Love Bad Publicity?
Furious Seasons - Glaxo goes after British blogger's video
Healthy Living - GSK lawyers have Paxil video taken down
Missisyphus's Weblog - Bob Fiddaman's Video
Pharmagossip - Aubrey Blumsohn on Corporate Bullying
Pharmalot - Glaxo, An Angry Blogger And Free Speech
Seroxat Secrets - GSK target Seroxat campaigner
Soulful Sepulcher - supports Bob Fiddaman
Tony Nunn - Glaxosmithkline news
Just in case GSK's lapdogs come a-calling on me, I've decided to take the video down (although plenty of the links below carry it, if you fancy a look). I've sought some advice on this subject, and this is best summed up with a message from our sponsor!
Related Links:
AHRP - Video sets Glaxosmithkline hounds to intimidate British blogger
Bipolar Blast - Glaxo Smith Kline
BLOGSCAN - GSK Lawyers Have Paxil Video Taken Down
Clinical Psych - Does GSK Love Bad Publicity?
Furious Seasons - Glaxo goes after British blogger's video
Healthy Living - GSK lawyers have Paxil video taken down
Missisyphus's Weblog - Bob Fiddaman's Video
Pharmagossip - Aubrey Blumsohn on Corporate Bullying
Pharmalot - Glaxo, An Angry Blogger And Free Speech
Seroxat Secrets - GSK target Seroxat campaigner
Soulful Sepulcher - supports Bob Fiddaman
Tony Nunn - Glaxosmithkline news
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
