Showing posts with label John Mack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Mack. Show all posts

Monday, May 07, 2007

AstraZeneca's pink cupcakes cause cat fight. According to John Mack.



John Mack has his unique take on this story; the fight between the "Black Kitty" who didn't like what Christiane Truelove over at MedAdNew wrote.

John's comments are here.



John calls this a kitty fight . . . the fight even inspires him to write a pink cupcake post called Guidelines for Gifts to Patients.

Meanwhile, Jack over at PharmaGossip has his own take on Christiane's own drug rep story . . .

Thursday, April 19, 2007

John Mack: "The Howard Stern of drug blogging?"

John Mack is a lovely guy, but his predilection to spin data faster than the drug industry spins PR doesn't increase his credibility. And his choice of language is reaching a new low, only matched by some FCC banned shock jocks.

First, let's start with the data spin. John has done a blogosphere survey, which we all helped steer our readers to, but the only thing we've seen so far is spin, spin, spin.

John's major objective seems to be to show snippets of data that shows his blog ranks high.

To do this he cuts the respondents into different groups, and he favors selecting the results only from individuals who happen to work for the drug industry.

In fact, in a post today on the PharmaBlogosphere, culling the data this way, and looking for "readability," "credibility" and "usefulness" the only three blogs that made it into all three top five lists was . . . surprise, John's blog PharmaMarketing, Eye on FDA, and In the Pipeline.

Two of those blogs are so dry, you'd have to be a scientist to enjoy them, and one of the blogs that made it onto one of those lists, Pharma Watch, isn't even available to the public!

I graciously note that even though my blog didn't make it into any of John's spin-controlled lists, he still couldn't resist the temptation to write about Question Authority, and this is what he said:

"Sorry, Peter, Question Authority -- popular as it might be among all readers -- did not make the "Industry Top 5" in any category! But I will say this: Industry readers thought that Question Authority was more supportive of the industry than did non-industry readers! In fact, it was second on that list (behind Pharma Marketing Blog) of blogs that the industry thought supportive. Perhaps if the survey was done over again today, industry respondents would have a different opinion! Perhaps more closely aligned with a view expressed on CafePharma; namely, "This Rost guy is a Michael Moore crony that is an industry and medical community outcast that has nothing better to do then sit at his computer all day long blogging about things he knows little about, blowing things out of proportion, and surfing porn."

I don't think the "industry supportive" result was surprising. I didn't spend 20 years in the drug industry not liking it. It is a great industry. The fact that I disagree with a few delusional drug company CEOs is a different story. I expect history to prove me right and their nose diving share prices to prove them wrong. Just one example, look at what I wrote about Pfizer's Exubera long before the analysts realized this thing was a flop.

As for John, I think the quote he picked up from CafePharma shuould have stayed on CafePharma. It is one thing for an anonymous idiot to post drivel about porn on CP, another thing for John to make it his own, by using it the way he did.

What made me react is not only this comment, but John also--in the name of being funny--posted this unprecedented "composite comment" from CafePharma about On Pharma, (On Pharma is written by a wonderful journalist; Agnes M. Shanley, Editorial Director for Putman Media, Inc.'s Pharma Group):

"The only word that can accurately describe you is inept. Are you kidding me? Stick your ethics up your ass. Listen up, you skeevy retard: You should have clean hands before you start spewing moral turpitude...Typing fagbot on an internet forum is not the same thing as screaming it out while waiting at the counter for my BK Broiler. You remain an idiot! Selfish egotistical asshole. If you are so interested in doing the right thing why don't you ... get into a circle jerk?"

So in conclusion, c'mon John, stop twisting the data to make yourself look good, show us the whole blog survey thing, and PLEASE, shape up your approach to your fellow bloggers. In fact, another blogger wrote me today about that last comment . . . so I know I'm alone saying that no one in the blog world expects silk gloves, but we also don't think paraphrasing or adopting the worst of CafePharma is the way to go, unless your objective is to be known as John Mack, the "Howard Stern of drug blogging."

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

My Mission.

John Mack on his blog asks What's your Mission/Vision Thing? and asks fellow bloggers to submit their visions.

That got me thinking.

What IS my vision thing for this blog? Clearly John has his thoughts about that, but seriously . . ?

Then it hit me. It had been right there in front of me, and I hadn't even realized what my mission was, until today. My mission is to appear as many times as possible on John's blog.

And it's working, here is the list of times John has mentioned various topics on his blog:

Topics
Dr. Peter Rost (19)
BrandweekNRX (18)
Pharmalot (13)
PharmaGossip (12)

This is a goooooooooood week

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

John Mack attacks, new blog apologizes.

John Mack is a little bit like a terrier, he's got a tough bite . . .

He wasn't amused when I discovered a new blog and it turned out this blog had (gasp) forgotten to give him credit when using some of his stuff.

Oh well. All is now well. I hope.

The new blog, which didn't yet know that links are part of blog etiquette, has now apologized.

Monday, March 26, 2007

Bias? Bias!

We continue to get fascinating little glimpses from John Mack's blog survey and I just discovered the chart below on his site.

I think this is all very interesting. What we don't have is data on p-values, statistical significance, number of responses, etc., so it is hard to judge how scientifically rigorous this data is.

The smaller the p-value, the more significant the result is said to be. For example, if someone argues that "there's only one chance in a thousand this could have happened by coincidence," they are implying a 0.1% level of statistical significance.

The lower the significance level, the stronger the evidence and if there are too few respondents, like only ten or fifty, then the result may have more to do with coincidence than reality. So while the blogs below that are red may indeed be more negative, the difference between them may not be statistically significant.

That's the theory.

But since none of this data is presented with any of the information needed to actually evaluate the data, it becomes less about science and more about entertainment.

Having said that, you may not be surprised if I think one has to be careful evaluating what you see below . . .

PharmaBlogosphere%2BBias

Friday, March 23, 2007

I have failed miserably!

John Mack who writes the fascinating Pharma Blogosphere today revealed a tiny tidbit about the blog survey he's been doing.

And what did it say?

It said I had failed.

A full 9% of pharma respondents who regularly reads a blog thought that "Question Authority" was somewhat or very credible.

That is rather shocking.

I mean, clearly, these 9% should be fired, ALL OF THEM, for insubordination!

To imagine that pharma employees would like anything on these pages is like imagining Komsomol (Kommunisticheskiy Soyuz Molodiozhi (Коммунистический союз молодёжи), or "Communist Union of Youth") organizers reading Wall Street Journal and loving it.

You know what would happen with those little Komsomolskis if they admitted to loving the WSJ, and the same, of course, will happen to any pharma employee admitting to liking my message.

BUT, I think John Mack is hiding something. Clearly he has indicated that he will not reveal the overall data from his survey until he goes to some kind of drug summitt. So he's visiting the real drug lord hard-liners, and to those he will reveal all the juice he found out about us other bloggers.

So we don't know if maybe 90% of all non-pharma people who didn't read blogs on a regular basis LOVED my blog. Which would, of course, also be a COMPLETE failure, considering that this blog is designed to be provocative, confrontational, irreverent, mocking, impertinent, flippant, and impudent, in order to make as many people as possible, including fellow bloggers upset.

And in spite of this hard work to provoke everyone, I know that there is almost no other blog John Mack subconsciously loves more than my blog, no matter how hard I try.

How do I know that?

Because his blog lists his TOP OVERALL TOPICS in the right column:

Topics
BrandweekNRX (14)
Dr. Peter Rost (12)
Pharmalot (11)
PharmaGossip (8)
Journalists (7)

OK, so he loves Jim Edwards at BrandweekNRX a tiny weeny little bit more, but hey, I'm second in John's heart. And that makes me feel warm and fuzzy, considering that John still does quite a bit of work for the drug lords.