PETER ROST: PHARMA MARKETING EXPERT WITNESS. AWP, MEDICAL DEVICE EXPERT.: Pharma Wins Over Religious Groups
screen2largeMM

Dr. Rost provides services as a pharmaceutical marketing expert witness. For more info see: Drug Expert Witness. Dr. Peter Rost email. Copyright © 2006-2013 InSync Communication. All rights reserved. Terms of use agreement, privacy policy and the computer fraud and abuse act.
.

PETER ROST: PHARMA MARKETING EXPERT WITNESS. AWP, MEDICAL DEVICE EXPERT.

Peter Rost, M.D., is a former Pfizer Marketing Vice President providing services as a medical device and drug expert witness and pharmaceutical marketing expert. Judge Sanders: "The court agrees with defendants' view that Dr. Rost is a very adept and seasoned expert witness." He is also the author of Emergency Surgery, The Whistleblower and Killer Drug. You can reach him on rostpeter (insert symbol) hotmail.com. Please read the terms of use agreement and privacy policy for this blog carefully.

Pharma Wins Over Religious Groups

A government advisory committee has recommended that all 11- and 12-year-old girls get a new vaccine to prevent the sexually transmitted virus that leads to most cases of cervical cancer. The vaccine can be given to girls as young as 9.

Many religious groups, including the influential Family Research Council, have opposed this vaccine, since they believe it will lead to more sex.

After all, if the girls have sex and later get cancer, perhaps fewer girls will have sex.

Read the full story here.

8 Comments:

Anonymous Reaniel said...

To some extend, I could see where the religious groups are coming from (note, I do not, in any way, agree with them, but I do see their logic behind it, regardless how twisted this logic is...)

It's the same way they're against free condoms... it'll lead to more sex!

I guess we'll see vegetarian groups pushing for banning researches on Mad-Cow... since it'll promote eating meat...

6/30/2006  
Anonymous John Johnson said...

I guess the HPV vaccine will lead to more sex the same way that virginity pledges will lead to less sex.

6/30/2006  
Blogger MsMelody said...

I am so angry that FDA continues to enable the pharmaceuticals. It appears that they have removed 'liability' concerns for the pharmaceuticals. "If we rubber-stamp a product for you, you can't be sued." To continue to essentially act as little more than street pushers for 'legal' drugs, the "FDA-approved" seal becomes meaningless.

Several months ago, FDA sent warning letters to cherry growers, admonishing that they were making unwarranted claims about the health benefits of cherries. At the same time, they allow Cheerios and Quaker to tout the cholesterol-reducing benefits of their products--never illuminating the public to the fact that such reductions are miniscule at best, and dependent on a prolonged lifestyle change.

It seems that what does--and what does not--garner FDA approval is based more on corporate power than on product.

6/30/2006  
Blogger beeta said...

msmelody, I agree and that was my point a few days ago commenting on PHARMA ads and the drug war. Even before this new ruling, FDA was helping PHARMA push legal drugs over nanything natural or so called ilegal.

I find it very interesting that Christianity is so obsessed with sex. I read a book called History of Celebacy a while back that examines the issue of celebacy in different societies throughout history and the reasons behind it. It usually has nothing to do with right and wrong. The reasons either have to do with a form of protest or a form of control of power, wealth or preserving a social structure.

6/30/2006  
Blogger beeta said...

Jay Rosen has an article called
"The People Formerly Known as the Audience" on THP.... pretty intersting.... and a few good comments... no e-mail address on his BIO though.

6/30/2006  
Anonymous Rosethejet said...

We really do need a new congress. I can't emphasize enough we must vote out all incumbents.

As well maybe some day we can get federally financed campaigns and get rid of the Sword of Damocles of "We'll give the money in the next campaign to your opponent unless you vote the way we want".

Anyone not believing that is exactly what is happening has their head buried deep in the sand.

Very deep.

6/30/2006  
Blogger MsMelody said...

rosethejet--

You expect to happen with the use of Diebold (and other) hacker-compliant voting machines? Don't think we have enough time and energy to enlist all voters to request absentee (paper) ballots, which would be one way to circumvent the e-machines.

Like you, I hope we vote the incumbents out . . . but I fear that their replacements will quickly join the ranks of 'going along to get along.' We truly need campaign reform! Instead of relying on govt. to supply same, I think pooling resources would be one way to solve the problem.

For example, years ago, when I worked as a waitress, the better waitresses, or those who curried favor with the manager, got the large tables with (potentially) the t-bone steak orders. And the newbies got the counter and booths with coffee & hamburgers. Need I tell you who (usually) garnered the bigger tips. Then I heard of other eateries where the waitresses all pooled their tips and divided them equally at the end of the shift.

Now if everyone--you, me, corporate, whoever--could contribute to "the election"--but not the party or candidate, the "pot" could be equitably distributed, with all participants getting an equal amount. Since big donors could not curry favor by supporting a candidate, I would expect to see smaller contributions, and consequently, smaller CAMPAIGNS! Would THAT be a blessing, or what?

Just a thought . . . but it would work for me. Of course, this is probably much to simplistic to be workable. Probably the first thing that would happen would be the creation of another government oversight agency . . . you know, like FDA or FEMA.

6/30/2006  
Blogger beeta said...

msmelody,
LOL I love it! and the idea too.

6/30/2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home