To write or not to write, that is the question.
PharmaBlogReview had an interesting piece, reviewing the most interesting pharma blogs here.
The Pharma Law blog made the list, and Christiane Truelove wrote the following:
"The Pharma Law Blog Former Pfizer whistleblower Dr. Peter Rost continues blogging, but seems to have lost some steam. Still, you never know when he’ll bring to light another scandal. And now that he’s working as an expert for plaintiffs’ lawyers in pharmaceutical industry cases, maybe he’ll get a bit more to talk about."
And that made me think about blogging or not and what to write about.
Quite frankly, writing day in and day out about pharma news is a bit boring to me, and contrary to PharmaBlogReview's suggestion, to write or talk about companies that are involved in litigation in which I'm involved as an expert witness is dicey.
Being an expert witness means that suddenly I know more than ever about all kinds of buried bodies, but the material from which I learned this is often confidential, and so I won't ever be able to discuss such things.
I realize that certain expert witnesses seem to assist in distributing material they've received during their professional work, but I don't think that is a good idea.
So, that means the Pharma Law Blog has been a bit more silent on corporate malfeasance than usual.
The interesting part is that it doesn't seem to make any difference what I write; visitors keep coming anyway. That is a bit bewildering for a marketing guy such as myself, but hey, it means that I can just hang out here now and then.
Feel free to come and do the same!