Dr. Irwig’s Propecia study, was it funded by attorneys suing Merck?

[PayDay]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/13/health/propecia-healthland-baldness-drug/index.html

Did I hear this right? Did the CNN medical reporter say that Dr. Irwig took money from attorney's suing Merck? So does this mean that Iriwig’s Propecia study was funded by the very attorneys representing the study participants? This is crazy if it’s true!

[rm056789]

On his published manuscript he doesn't declare any conflicts of interest which would have to be declared if it were the case

[PayDay]

On his published manuscript he doesn't declare any conflicts of interest which would have to be declared if it were the case

Irwig is supposed to disclose that information, so we all assume that he would, but the CNN health reporter clearing made a point of stating the Irwig did take money from these attorneys and this is the first I have ever heard of this. If the attorneys who are suing Merck are actually the ones who funded this study or gave Irwig any kickbacks then it's pretty shady. How do we find out more about this?

[25 going on 65]

One way I can think to reconcile these things is if Irwig has taken money from attorneys suing Merck, but those attorneys' money was not used to fund the study itself, in which case I'm thinking he wouldn't have needed to disclose a conflict of interest?

[PayDay]

One way I can think to reconcile these things is if Irwig has taken money from attorneys suing Merck, but those attorneys' money was not used to fund the study itself, in which case I'm thinking he wouldn't have needed to disclose a conflict of interest?

Legally he might not have to disclose this after the fact, but ethically, how can any legitimate clinical investigator take kickbacks from attorneys trying to shake down Merck. There is no way to reconcile that, it's shady all the way if this is true.

What was it like, the attorneys said, “way to go Irwig, you really shook things up! Here's 10k for the hard work.” There is no need for the attorneys to give Irwig any money after the fact, it they did give him the cash then it was probably part of the whole plan. These attorneys needed something to hang their hats on and this study gave them what they needed. Now with all of the media pressure they will probably end up with a multi million dollar settlement for themselves and their clients just to go away.

[25 going on 65]

I didn't mean it would be ethical, just that it might explain the lack of disclosure if he took money from those attorneys.
To be honest I don't think his series of case studies are necessarily useless, but they are being so widely misinterpreted (a lot of it is due to bad reporting--headlines like "96% of fin users have permanent sides") that more harm has been done than good.

imo a more helpful bit of evidence for PFS was the Merck study on 5 mg finasteride, where something like .5-1% of users got sides that didn't fully resolve after six months. Of course that was done on a bunch of old guys with prostate problems taking 5 mg per day, so the risk would presumably be lower for younger healthy guys taking 1-1.25 mg for hair.
I also wouldn't say it demonstrates irreversible sides since unwanted effects from drugs can go on for months or years before resolving on their own, and also some people have recovered from lingering fin sides by seeking medical treatment (this would not happen for sides that were "permanent" or "irreversible").

[PayDay]

I didn't mean it would be ethical, just that it might explain the lack of disclosure if he took money from those attorneys.
To be honest I don't think his series of case studies are necessarily useless, but they are being so widely misinterpreted (a lot of it is due to bad reporting--headlines like "96% of fin users have permanent sides") that more harm has been done than good.

imo a more helpful bit of evidence for PFS was the Merck study on 5 mg finasteride, where something like .5-1% of users got sides that didn't fully resolve after six months. Of course that was done on a bunch of old guys with prostate problems taking 5 mg per day, so the risk would presumably be lower for younger healthy guys taking 1-1.25 mg for hair.
I also wouldn't say it demonstrates irreversible sides since unwanted effects from drugs can go on for months or years before resolving on their own, and also some people have recovered from lingering fin sides by seeking medical treatment (this would not happen for sides that were "permanent" or "irreversible").

I agree, I think Irwigs’s study is useful and relevant, no doubt about it. My concern in the dishonesty about the whole thing and the misinterpretation by the media like you said. It’s really being blown way out of proportion and if Irwig did take money from the attorneys who are suing Merck this is what is really news worthy to me. It’s bad medicine and completely unethical. The media likes to sensationalize stuff without even doing good research. This was the first time I had ever heard that Irwig was paid by the attorneys going after Merck and this is a very big deal!

[25 going on 65]

Personally this is the first I've heard of him taking money from those attorneys. I wouldn't be surprised if this was bad reporting in itself.

Actually Irwig is significantly balding....maybe he can't take fin due to sides so he wants the rest of the world to go bald with him.
(Now watch news stations pick up on this post and start reporting it as factual)

Unfortunately it's hard to know sometimes with these situations. Every drug in the world has lawsuits against its manufacturers and the money trails aren't always clear.

[PayDay]

Personally this is the first I've heard of him taking money from those attorneys. I wouldn't be surprised if this was bad reporting in itself.

Actually Irwig is significantly balding....maybe he can't take fin due to sides so he wants the rest of the world to go bald with him.
(Now watch news stations pick up on this post and start reporting it as factual)

Unfortunately it's hard to know sometimes with these situations. Every drug in the world has lawsuits against its manufacturers and the money trails aren't always clear.

The reporter was way too specific for it to be bad reporting. She even stated that while he said he DID accept money from the attorneys suing Merck, it was less then $10,000. She would have had to make up the whole thing to be that specific. This smells very bad and I think we all need more information about this. This would change everything and the media should further investigate it.

[25 going on 65]

The reporter was way too specific for it to be bad reporting. She even stated that while he said he DID accept money from the attorneys suing Merck, it was less then $10,000. She would have had to make up the whole thing to be that specific. This smells very bad and I think we all need more information about this. This would change everything and the media should further investigate it.

Well that definitely does sound quite fishy.

[SoothSayer]

Dr. Irwig did not receive any funding for publishing the study and the costs were conducted out of pocket. His first study was released a substantial amount of time before any lawsuits were filed, to the best of my knowledge. The media gets facts wrong all the time and this apparently is no exception.

Think about this for a brief moment - would a professional who earns a doctors salary really bother to spend hundreds of hours researching a clinical problem in addition to the time required to write-up the analysis and get it published for a mere sum of LESS than $10,000. A successful doctor could make that salary in a single week, it really doesn't make sense he would months to earn such a pitiful sum.

[PayDay]

Dr. Irwig did not receive any funding for publishing the study and the costs were conducted out of pocket. His first study was released a substantial amount of time before any lawsuits were filed, to the best of my knowledge. The media gets facts wrong all the time and this apparently is no exception.

Think about this for a brief moment - would a professional who earns a doctors salary really bother to spend hundreds of hours researching a clinical problem in addition to the time required to write-up the analysis and get it published for a mere sum of LESS than $10,000. A successful doctor could make that salary in a single week, it really doesn't make sense he would months to earn such a pitiful sum.

In today’s world unless you are a brain surgeon or a plastic surgeon the average physician earns less than $200k per year. You never know what a persons expenses are. Add in student loans etc.,and that $10k might look very tempting. The reporter made a point to state that he received the money from the attorneys suing Merck and I think you are wrong about the timeline of the first lawsuits anyway. She would not have said it if it were not true. Its not like she misquoted a statistic, she made a point to state that fact and said the Iriwg said that this was the case. This does not make the study irrelevant, just a lot less legitimate.

[SoothSayer]

I can tell you for a fact that he funded the study for himself. Dr. Irwig opened the study in March 2010 and the first US lawsuits were filed more than a year later in 2011. The media makes mistakes all the time so I'm not sure why you assume it is true because it was aired on CNN. Just a few weeks ago CNN falsely reported that the US Supreme Court ruled the health care reform act to be unconstitutional before revising it, which is an error far more significant than the one for this single study.

Any way, here is an article with a direct quote from Dr. Irwig in which he claims his interest in studying the topic came from his personal practice and that his study was not funded by any third-parties.

http://www.examiner.com/article/doctors-link-hair-growth-drug-to-sexual-dysfunction-depression-and-cancer

As noted above, in the end of his first article it is written Conflict of Interest: None. If there was any external funding, it would be required to be disclosed in his article or the potential consequences of his actions would far outweigh a few thousand dollars as was the case for Andrew Wakefield in the UK who lost his medical license.

[PayDay]

You do know that the Examiner is nothing more than a glorified blog right? I mean you have to know that. It is easy to find out if irwig took the money and if he did it does not mean that the study was necessarily tainted, but it does certainly question the motives behind the study and kind of clues us into why most participants were from propeciahelp. It’s not good.

[SoothSayer]

Using the same reasoning you could say that the mainstream media is really comprised of glorified blogs. The Examiner has a smaller circulation and does not have as strong a name brand as CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC etc but they do the same exact job. That being said I do not personally use the Examiner as a regular source of news but it has done a more thorough job covering the finasteride controversy which has been neglected by media sources that target a much wider audience.

I'm telling you that the study was funded from Dr. Irwig's own finances as I have spoken with him directly. You would be understandably skeptical of what I am telling you so I referred you to another article that represents the same facts I have conveyed to you.

If you research Andrew Wakefield's autism-vaccine controversy, you'll find he took more than 400,000 GBP which was probably about $800k dollars at the time. A figure that is much more believable than vaguely 'less than $10,000'.

I can tell you that many patients came from PropeciaHelp because it is the largest and more centralized source of information on post-finasteride-syndrome, for better or worse. It is difficult to find patients via word of mouth because they are not super common. It is just an easy way to establish a starting population before filtering out the not-ideal candidates.