Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Message from a Monogram Bioscience investor.

My story yesterday "Pfizer whistleblower accuses company of using sales force to illegally market new AIDS-drug before FDA approval" received quite a bit of attention from Monogram Bioscience investors. They seem to fear what the fall-out may do to Monogram stock.

The biotech company has its fortunes closely aligned with Pfizer and the success of the drug I wrote about, maraviroc. Monogram Biosciences makes a blood test to determine if a patient falls into the category that should be treated with the Pfizer drug.

Yesterday Monogram stock fell about 4%, but the Monogram shares have experienced downward pressure since last week.

It doesn't make any difference to me, since I don't hold any stock but it certainly makes a difference to Monogram investors.

And I like to present a balanced picture.

An opportunity to do just that arose when a Monogram investor wrote to me yesterday and said, "Your National Inquirer approach is disgusting and deplorable! I understand you are disgruntled and you have an axe to grind, but in the process you are screwing a lot of other people."

So I invited him to write something I could use, from his perspective. This is his response:

"----Original Message Follows----
From: redacted@aol.com\
To: rostpeter@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: PFE article
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:32:16 EDT


I don't want you to write anything. I think the whole story is ridiculous and false. If this person wanted to remain anonymous, "she" certainly wouldn't be anymore based on what was written in that "statement." Also, on your blog site you write that some law firm called you ready to represent you... why in the world would you need representation if you are telling the truth. You also elude to a network picking up the article, but then go on to hint at the possibility that it wouldn't happen because the "whistle blower" may not be comfortable coming forward. The description of the "WB" and her position, and the meetings she attended and with whom would make it clear to anyone on the inside who the "WB" is.

My concern with this article/story is that I am an investor in another company that is in collaboration with Pfizer, and I am sure that along with myself there are plenty of others that are investing in their children's futures via the stock market. I know how sometimes the least little thing can effect small bio-tech's while this story won't have any effect whatsoever on Pfizer. I understand you are disgruntled, but don't drag others into your frustration with the company. Sometimes what you print has far-reaching effects beyond your intended target. If this is true, then collect far more information and tie up the many loose ends and then print the story with names, incidences and real substance. I am a journalism and mass comm. major, and if I would have brought this story to my producer, I would get laughed at thoroughly. This is irresponsible on your part, in my opinion, and as long as it's missing the many facts that it needs to not scream of libelous journalism, it's not ready for print.

Just my opinion,

Perhaps a couple of clarifications are needed. The law firm didn't ask to represent me . . . they asked to represent the Pfizer whistleblower. And there were many persons who could have given me the information I published yesterday. There are quite a few Pfizer employees less than pleased with Pfizer's response to ethical issues.

As for the Monogram investor, this was my response:

"Thanks for this response. I'm sorry to tell you this may get worse, real fast. You may want to rebalance your portfolio. Stay tuned for update today.

No comments: