PETER ROST: PHARMA MARKETING EXPERT WITNESS. AWP, MEDICAL DEVICE EXPERT.: The U.S. Supreme Court Visits Question Authority
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.

The U.S. Supreme Court Visits Question Authority

I'm honored.

Supreme Court

Labels: ,

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wellcome your honor. This is a good place for you to get the goods on those other "drug pushers". They were exposed for the first time in the now classic book "The Real Pushers" by the author of better known "The Wheels" and "The Hotel".The name of the author escapes me.
We expect you to do your job right and will help you with any info we have. Just ask.

6/19/2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

they're probably watching their Monogram stock sink slowly into the ocean...

6/19/2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like an interesting as well as factual and accurate book.

For films, the Constant Gardener can't be too far off the mark either. I'm confused, is this the transcript?
http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18485910&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=7546&rfi=6

6/19/2007  
Anonymous the-guardian-article said...

Apparently in Europe where no advertising of drugs are allowed, Pfizer is part of a group trying to get over this obstacle to a few more $Billions by launching their own TV Channel which they are disingenuously calling the "European Patient Information Channel".

The reporting journalist for the Guardian is more realistic and calls it "The Shopping Channel Run by Drug Firms" and I've seen it dubbed elsewhere as "The Real Science Fiction Channel".

Could this 'EPIC' failure at convincing Europeans of pure intentions have anything to do with Pfizer's lengthy criminal record and their dogged refusal to behave in a scientific, transparent and lawful, manner?

6/19/2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's horrifying that people with their power own so much in stock in corporations whose cases come before them!

What are the chances that Jane Roe can beat Pfizer in any case that comes before a court run by Monogram-Bioscience and Pfizer shareholders who don't want to see their stock value deflate?

Talk about a conflict of interest and a need to recuse oneself from such cases that come before them.

But, hey, Scalia thinks it's perfectly fine to go hunting with Dick Cheney at the same time he's hearing a case involving the administration; and that there's no need to recuse himself and no conflict present. Scalia tells himself how intelligent he is everyday, but the man wouldn't know a conflict of interest if it hit him in the face.

Anyone catch Congressman Chris Cannon (a senior member on the House Governmental Oversight Committee) berating Eric Topol of the Cleveland Clinic for raising concerns about Avendia in the New England Journal of Medicine article? All Cannon could do was go on ad nauseum about how tired he was of report after report coming out driving down stock values more than 20% at a time of these poor hardworking companies who are only trying to save lives. (Do you think he has any Glaxo stock and Pharma contributions to his campaign, or that he's really that stupid and incapable of understanding the science behind the Avendia risks, or both???)

Either way, my concern is that Anonymous post #2 above is correct; but that they're monitoring that story so that they can vote to grant cert. to similar drug fraud cases where they can make up new laws (as they have consistently done with false claims act cases under Roberts, Scalia, and Alito) out of thin air-- plain language of the statute be damned-- that can favor their corporate interests and stock holdings.

You should be honored, Doc, but the rest of us should be horrified.

ScArY!

6/20/2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home