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

[PayDay]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/13/health...rug/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.