jkenner at cello.gina.calstate.edu (Jason Kennerly) wrote:
>Sy Fisher <sfisher at utmb.edu> writes:
>> That's the name of the game when a company's profits are threatened by
>> published research results: try to discredit the studies as "flawed"
>> or "bad science" (of course, some studies may indeed be flawed). That's
>> what Pfizer was trying to do with our Zoloft vs Prozac study (J Clin
>> Psychiatry 1995;56:288-296).
>>Are you referring to the "Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Dose
>Titration in the Naturalistic Setting" study?
>>Oops, nevermind that was elsewhere. Damn... wish I had a library.. heh..
>anyways, 2 of the 4 researchers listed on the author line are affiliated
>with Lilly directly.... I'd be interested in seeing the affiliations of
>your study.
>You certainly do have the wrong study! If you'd take the time to read
the J Clin Psychiatry article I referred to, you'd find that (a) the 3
authors have no affiliation with any drug companies; (b) the authors are
faculty members at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston;
(c) the study was conducted by the University's Center for Medication
Monitoring, which accepts no drug company funding.
I suspect that the results of this study, which were based on large-scale
data indicating that many adverse reactions known to be induced by
fluoxetine (Prozac) were being reported with even greater frequency by
sertraline (Zoloft) patients, will be indiscriminately attacked by Pfizer
as well as other industry partisans.
If you'd like to see the original post that led to this particular
thread, showing how Pfizer attempted to intervene in the publication of
the study, I'd be happy to send you a copy by e-mail: sfisher at utmb.edu
What I don't understand: if you already knew you were somewhat confused,
why did you post your comment before trying to get straightened out?
