. . . is a man who lives in Connecticut and he doesn't like my book. Nor does he like several other books critical of the pharma industry.
You see, he only writes negative reviews on Amazon.com and he only writes about books critical of the drug industry.
Here they are.
So who is Brian O'Neill? We don't know. He supposedly writes under his real name. And he claims he's been a "pharmaceutical researcher for 22 years." According to a bad review he gave Marcia Angel's book. This info kind of gives us a clue.
I just feel bad for Brian O'Neill over at Pfizer's Global Research and Development facility in Groton, CT. I mean, Brian the pharma researcher who lives in CT and writes on Amazon might just be an evil twin. And of course, I would never for a second believe that Pfizer has started mobilizing its employees to slam my book.
But just in case that is happening, which we don't know, I guess I have to ask those of my readers who have read The Whistleblower--Confessions of a Healthcare Hitman, to kindly put in their comments about my book.
You have to have shopped on Amazon to enter a review, and you would go here.
Oh, there is also something else you can do, and you don't need to ever have shopped at Amazon to do this; you can tell others which reviews were helpful and which ones were not, by clicking yes and no after the reviews . . .
Thanks in advance!
5 comments:
It is quite interesting how this person is focusing on books regarding the drug companies. Plus, the reviews are less reviews, and more just a spouting of his own agenda (as a Pharm researcher for the past 22 years). I doubt he read anything more than the back of the dust jackets, if that.
I did find his review of Marcia Angell's book kinda amusing - he leads off with "I can't believe that the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine would know so little about the discovery of drugs..."
Why? I used to work with the press and we considered the New England Journal of Medicine to be the "National Enquirer" of medical journals amongst the folks in the newsroom. That journal would print just about anything and the press just loved to jump on a lot of the rather hokey research that appeared between the pages. Now, perhaps the NEJoM has grown up since the 80's and early 90's when we had so much fun at their expense...but to try to use THAT journal as a reason someone should know better...well, it kinda made me laugh.
Dr. Rost,
Just an FYI. For those of us who heard about your new book on 9/10 (BLOG party day) and ordered it on that same day (provided we didn't pay for next-day shipping), we will just be receiving the books today and tomorrow (as per Amazon). I'm still waiting for my book! So give us all a few more days to receive and read the book before expecting reader reviews on Amazon...and more fodder for discussion here.
Thanks for letting me know, sorry Amazon takes so much time. They didn't quite expect the blog party, I guess.
So maybe next week we can talk about the content.
:)
NEJM is a "hokey journal"? similar to the National Enquirer? Pretty obvious that someone hasn't treated a single patient in his/her life nor has any comprehension of how evidence-based medicine works. I'm not aware of anyone during my training who viewed it as "The Grail" but I'll continue to use it as an important source as I practice medicine and not some jive-ass "researcher" who has significantly more in common with Tom Cruise than a practicing physician. The next time I see Jeff Drazen I'm certain we'll have a chuckle over the naive commentary regarding the NEJM.
Actually, yes, that surprised me a bit as well. I always had the impressions the NEJM was perceived as #1 as far as credibility and difficulty getting manuscripts accepted, with JAMA a close second. Any other opinions? Perhaps I can be educated . . .
Post a Comment