4 Comments

Another great piece. At 33 paid substack subscriptions, this is by far my favorite (sorry Taibbi). Consider bookmarking this post as your introduction so new readers can better understand your lens.

Had no idea you were behind the open payments website. Pretty amazing. Used it to double check my wife just now who racked up $500 in "payments" in 2021 :) https://imgur.com/a/VVYUqw9

I wonder if that was what lead to the decline of the "Drug Dinners" my wife used to attend all the time in medschool? Pharm and device manufacturers used to take swaths of residents all the time to high end steakhouses to pitch their wares, that seemed to have died out in the late 00's.

Expand full comment

Important work to teach/ inform the next generation. Most have no clue.

Expand full comment

Hi Paul, in this article you are saying even 6 figures is a large COI :-)

I remember leaving a comment on your article a few months back, where I pointed out Andrew Hill's potential conflict-of-interest worth $40 million on the Ivermectin meta-analysis for the WHO:

https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/reporters-expose-pfizer-misinformation/comment/4001337

Now I am wondering - what exactly were Andrew Hill's qualifications? Of all the people whose recommendation the WHO could have listened to, why did they chose him? Why did Andrew Hill do an about turn (he was VERY favorable towards IVM until Dec 2020)? Why did he close his Twitter account as soon as he made the recommendation to the WHO?

Even more weird. Andrew Hill suddenly popped back into the research world, this time dissing another competitor of Pfizer (Molnupiravir by Merck):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35276667/

How many people know that the lead author of the TOGETHER trial (Edward Mills) - the trial that everyone claims "definitively proved" that Ivermectin does not work - now thinks the drug which showed the most promising results from the trial (Fluvoxamine) was unfairly rejected by the FDA?

Here is Vox, explaining why it was OK for the FDA to "reject" Fluvoxamine because we now have Paxlovid.

They write "Today, there is: antiviral drug Paxlovid. Even fluvoxamine’s strongest advocates agree that Paxlovid works a lot better", which is quite questionable given the number of high profile people who took Paxlovid and got a COVID19 rebound.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/5/20/23107842/emergency-approval-fda-rejected-fluvoxamine-covid-drug

Also, Paxlovid is MUCH MORE expensive than Fluvoxamine. How did the writers at Vox miss this seemingly basic and obvious fact? And what is the harm in having more options for treatment?

You can also read the soundbite from Ed Mills in that article, which shows he wasn't happy with the FDA's decision.

All this seem to point to Pfizer declaring a silent war on competing drugs so that they can sell their products more easily.

Or maybe I am wrong. Who knows?

But I do wish someone would investigate all this.

Expand full comment