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, 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) Please read the terms of use agreement and privacy policy for this blog carefully.

Pfizer REALLY doesn't like this blog . . .

As most of you know, I've spent some time describing the recent turmoil within Pfizer. So has every other major newspaper. What makes this blog different, is that I used to work for Pfizer and may have more insight than some reporters. This, apparently, is not something Pfizer likes.

But every issue has two sides, and I think I would be unfair if I didn't also try to present Pfizer's opinion. After all, I am sure they want my readers to know what they think of my blog and what I write.

So, in order to be fair and balanced, here is Pfizer's opinion, which my attorney received beginning of this week:


I think the letter speaks for itself. Not much to say.

I am only saddened that Pfizer has such a hard time sticking to the facts. For instance, we never had any financial negotiations when I was an employee. We never asked for any money. Pfizer asked my lawyer for an estimate of the damages he thought we could prove in Court, and he dutifully responded. That was stupid. Because Pfizer took that letter, in spite of the fact that it starts out saying something like "based on your informal request," and now claims we blackmailed them.

As for me, when fine lawyers like the EBG firm start misrepresenting basic facts, it simply means they are in a complete panic.

You see, Pfizer has a major problem with me.

There is nothing they can do to hurt me anymore. Not a thing. They've taken away what I had worked an entire career to build. And that is of course frustrating. For them.

So here's my suggestion:

Dear Pfizer, please take this post to the Court, together with every post I've ever written about Pfizer. Surely you have them alphabetized and catalogued.

And ask the Judge to give me direction on what I can and cannot write. After all, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the specifics, but I'm very sure I haven't violated anything. And just in case I do a mistake I have that very broad legal disclaimer, don't forget showing that to the Judge as well, the way you "forgot" last time you wrote the Court.

Stop bitching and threatening and let's see some manly action! File that motion! Now! This blog threatens the entire jury pool in the state of New York! That's what you are saying, right?

But I don't think Pfizer has the guts to do that. You see, they and their lawyers are bullies. They behave like the bull running for the red cloth. And sure, there is a risk being a bull fighter. But then again, if the bull fighter has nothing left to lose, there can be an awesome fight. And the bull just might go down.

So, let's wave that cloth again. Pfizer, file the motion, show your big legal muscles!

Prove me wrong! What are you waiting for? Surely if you file an exciting motion you will feel better, right?

But you don't have the guts, because you don't want the judge to read all my posts and learn how badly YOU have behaved, when it comes to the "spirit" of the law.

By the way, when you file that motion, you better make sure you win. Because, maybe otherwise you will look like the bull to the left.

A poor, big $50 billion drug company threatened by one single guy. And this little blog could sway every juror in New York. Now that is a nice bull fight.

This blog is called freedom of speech. We still have that in this country.


Blogger Michael said...

You've definitely got, um BALLS, Dr. Rost. I've been reading and perusing your blog only the past month or so. Therefore, I am not too current on your Pfizer relationship. But, definitely hats off to you for not backing down.

Good luck!

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, go Peter go Peter go!

This is what makes your blog great!

Blogger Friendly Curmudgeon said...

"aggrandize himself publicly at the expense of Pfizer"


Is poor little Pfizer, the NY Yankees of pharma industry that troubled by you?

I say keep it up, Peter, it is like David and Goliath, as I see it...

I don't know much about influencing juries inappropriately via your blog (I am a doctor too, and not a lawyer) but I think this is a freedom of speech issue.

Keep up the pressure, dude!

Blogger Erik said...


The Maldonado vs. For Motor Company case mentioned in the letter is of interest. 'Twas a sexual harassmanet case. The court specifically asked Maldonado and her lawyers not to publiicize the harrasser's previous sexual-related conviction - however, the court found that they had done pre-trial publicity on that very thing and therefore, the suit was dismissed by the court. Note that Maldonado specifically defied a court order in this case.

HOWEVER, Maldonado appealed and the dismissal was reversed. So the reference to this case is either poorly founded, or Phizer's lawyers just hoped nobody would follow it further than the ititial dismissal. Geez. Sloppy.

Still, I would be very careful and discuss the situation with your lawyers at length - Phizer may very well be on the run, but the issue of pre-trial publicity is problematic. Plainly, it is admissible as something Phizer can use against you - and from what I've seen of legal proceedings in this country, logic doesn't always rule the day in a courtroom. You never know if the judge you get will be pro-big-business, or pro-little guy (not suggesting for a moment that you, good Dr., are a little guy).

Anonymous Anonymous said...

In addition to poor referencing of legal cases, they need to find a new proof reader to reign over their letter writing department if they would truly like your lawyer to rein you in.

Never underestimate the power of misusing words to make one look like an idiot.

Blogger shooter45 said...

Peter, I would be interested to know if your case was brought in Federal or State Court. (Maybe you answered that in a previous post but ever since Moo came into view, I've had trouble concentrating.) I've had considerable experience in New York courts and NY attorneys. To a person they strongly recommend bringing suit in State Court. While the potential award is considerably lower, the Federal Courts are stacked with judges (due to the crony appointment process) where calling them "wacko's" is a libel against wacko's everywhere. The State Courts have a much greater percentage of competent judges and your chances of a just verdict is much greater.

Just a thought..........

p.s. Another thought... You may want to consider curtailing your mocking and sarcastic criticism, of the Pfizer lawyers. While I agree, (their incompetent and bizarre representation is truly breathtaking), why would you want to shame Pfizer's management into making a switch to quality counsel? Like Bill O'Reilly would say, Shooter is looking out for YOU.

Blogger Peter Rost said...

My suit is in federal court in New York, because defendants are in various states.

And, my understanding is that we have an impartial and fair Judge with impeccable credentials. It is my impression that he is frustrated right now about the constant delays created by Pfizer. And so am I.

Because of this I have instructed my lawyer not to give Pfizer any more time courtesis, since they have simply abused past time extensions and have, in my opinion, made a mockery of the discovery process.

And, since they have acted in such a reckless manner, I have described that process, so that everything is brought out in the light.

Of course, they don't like that.

But there is an easy solution.

If Pfizer's lawyers would follow the "spririt" of the law I would have nothing to write about. After all, I'm not interested in impairing the legal process, quite the contrary.

But when that process has already been made into a joke by defendants, I don't really have much to lose by highlighting their behavior.

Anonymous Anonymous said...

!Torro, torro!


Blogger Moogirl said...

Ole’ Señor Rost! Wow, where to start...

So this is the best that highpriced, well educated, drug company legal eagles can come up with??? I’ve written more intimidating grocery lists. Could they BE any more transparent? They are afraid...very afraid.

The best they can come up with is that you violated the "spirit" of the agreement? I’m sorry, but the "spirit" of something can be very subjective. I wonder if they are aware how hard that would be to prove in a court of law.

Then they try to shame you by accusing you of not living up to your commitment. How very weak.

Just in case you’re not yet intimidated enough by their tactics, they throw in a little condescension by ordering your lawyer to "bring you into compliance" and "reign you in" (reign???) like the unruly child you are! Their last accusation is that you’re tainting the jury pool. I stand in awe of just how ridiculous this statement is. We could go through this letter line upon line, pointing out how very feeble it is, but that could take hours. I just can’t get over how condescending the whole thing is. It’s almost as if they’re stoking the fire, on purpose. Hmmmm.....

I can only assume that your lawyer is already familiar with what goes on here in Rost World and that he is no more intimidated by these juvenile tactics than you are.

In my world, we call your response to this letter "poking the bear". I think it’s safe to assume we can now change that to "teasing the bull". Your response to this letter is no less than brilliant and you are certainly worthy of the title King of Snark! I’m sure I will have more to add, but I’ve yet to have my morning coffee. And I try never to deal with life’s complete stupidity until after my first cup. This may be a two-cup kinda morning…

PS. Shooter, THESE are the people to be on the lookout for Sunday. They’ll be easily recognizable, as they all apparently have pointy little heads...

Blogger Argon said...

Well that's what happens when you hire the 3 Stogges Law firm of Dewy Bleedem & Howe, Pfizer might be paying high prices for them, but you've already shown several times how incompetent they are. Why expect them to show any more guts in this than they did when they screwed up the disclosure?

They must be too used to people they can intimidate to actually do a decent job on the merits of the case, so stick to your guns and you'll prevail

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Love it, love it, love it!!!

Pfizer's attitude smacks of a playground bully who's suddenly found that the weedy little bespectacled first-grader they thought were picking on is actually a black belt.

Give 'em the rough end of a pineapple, Peter...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another example of Pfizer's drugs of choice: INTIMIDATION AND CASH. (And with all their cash, you'd think they could hire a law firm that could spell!)

G _ D forbid that the opinion of a medical professional such as Dr. Rost should upset Pfizer. The company was certainly quick to attempt to discredit Dr. Rost who, “as director of European commercial operations for another drug company in the mid-1990s…saw cross-border trade reduce prescription drug costs.” (Washington Post (October 1, 2004)


'"Chuck Hardwick, a senior vice president at Pfizer, sent a letter to several members of Congress stating, "Dr. Rost has no qualifications to speak on importation, no responsibilities in this area at Pfizer, no knowledge of the information and analysis Pfizer has provided to the government on this issue, and no substantive grasp of how importation may impact the safety of this nation's drug supply."'

'Seven members of Congress wrote a letter to the company yesterday condemning the inquiry. "If this is true, [Wednesday's] interrogation, during which attorneys demanded details of private conversations with Members of Congress and their staffs, was clearly intended to intimidate Dr. Rost," said the letter, whose signers included Reps. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Dan Burton (R-Ind.).' (Washington Post -- October 1, 2004)

Pfizer's universe is a place where people and their opinions and their silence can and are bought. INTIMIDATION AND CASH are Pfizer's only weapons against democratic discourse and 'open discussion and debate,' one of Pfizer's "deeply" held values. Hypocrits!!


Blogger Peter Rost said...

Erik, I completely missed saying . . . wow and thanks for the analysis!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home