Search Details

Word: mysteclin (lookup in dictionary) (lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first (reverse)


Usage:

...stretch the editorial "we" to include our public affairs department) tried to explain to your reporter in some detail that the Mysteclin-F matter, like so many other issues of drug efficacy, involved complex questions of benefits versus risks, questions on which medical experts could legitimately disagree. We earnestly endeavored to convey our point of view--totally disregarded in your editorial--that pharmaceutical companies had a right, indeed a duty, to retain the best possible medical counsel to help them develop and review their products...

Author: NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED | Title: SQUIBB DEFENDS EBERT | 12/14/1972 | See Source »

Furthermore, you unquestioningly accepted the negative opinion on Mysteclin-F reportedly rendered by a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel. Just what makes you think that these unidentified panelists are absolutely right and Squibb scientists and the outside experts advising us are absolutely wrong? Even after your short exposure to this question, you should have learned that these are highly complex matters on which competent scientists can legitimately differ. In this case, where there is no question as to the safety of the product or as to its efficacy (it cures the people it purports to cure...

Author: NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED | Title: SQUIBB DEFENDS EBERT | 12/14/1972 | See Source »

First, we think that Ebert owes the community a full report of his activities for Squibb since 1969. Some of his consulting tasks will doubtless portray him in a far better light than have the Mysteclin-F hearings, for he is widely known as a man with progressive views on medical issues. We also believe that Ebert ought to be less modest and disclose the amount of the retainer he has been receiving from Squibb...

Author: NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED | Title: Ebert and Squibb | 12/6/1972 | See Source »

...dissent from National Academy of Sciences National Research Council consumer-protection findings is somewhat unusual. It becomes questionable when we learn that the dean has been paid and sponsored by the very pharmaceutical company whose product he is defending. And if the apparent consensus of medical judgement on Mysteclin-F can be trusted, then Ebert's testimony before the FDA failed to damage the interests of medical consumers only because the advisory panel was wise enough to dismiss his arguments...

Author: NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED | Title: Ebert and Squibb | 12/6/1972 | See Source »

...view Ebert's Mysteclin-F testimony as an especially dubious exercise of a somewhat dubious consulting prerogative, and we believe that the Dean has traded on the prestige of the Medical School in an attempt to stave off an FDA ban of the drug. Dean Ebert should take his Harvard administrative post off the market by resigning his consulting position at Squibb...

Author: NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED | Title: Ebert and Squibb | 12/6/1972 | See Source »

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next