Rost Raises the Issue of Libel: My Apology

OK. I started this, so I should finish it.

A few days ago I accused Peter Rost (Question Authority) of sending me unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) in violation of the CAN-SPAM law (see "Rost Spams!") . Yesterday, Peter retorted that it was not spam because he did not send the email in bulk and only to people he has had a previous business relationship with.

In that retort Peter raises the issue of libel (see "Pharmablogosphere: Spam or libel?"). When Peter threatens legal action -- even between the lines -- you have to take notice.

As you may know, Rost has other, bigger fish to fry (ie, Pfizer) and he is concerned that any accusations against him could hurt his case. So, I feel his pain.

He says: "Of course, I figure that John was just having fun and not seriously accusing me of a crime, so I'm not seriously accusing him of libel."

Peter, you know I don't think you are a criminal. If anything, I wanted to point out that I thought your e-mail was in violation, something that could happen if you didn't know the details of the CAN-SPAM law (silly me to think that you wouldn't know the details). That is, I never thought you intended to break the law.

But let's examine if it was spam at all.

Looking at the header of the e-mail that Peter sent me, it appears that it was indeed sent by Peter personally using hotmail with multiple recipients in the BBC field. People do that in regular business correspondence to keep the recipients' e-mail addresses confidential. You might recall that failure to keep e-mail addresses confidential is what got Lilly into hot water with the FTC (see "The FTC-Lilly Consent Decree: What it Means for PHARMA Vendors and Partners").

I guess what Peter did is not considered a "bulk" e-mail tactic. If that is the case and the e-mail was sent to acquaintances, it fails to meet the definition of spam and would not be covered by the US CAN-SPAM act. Also, it means that Peter used techniques to protect the privacy of recipients.

I feel, therefore, that I owe Peter an apology for calling him a spammer. Sorry, Peter.



Can I get a T-shirt now?

What's Up With Pharma Watch?

Here's something I've never seen before. Pharma Watch won't let me in! It says it's open by invitation only and that I'm not invited!

"It doesn't look like you have been invited to read this blog. If you think this is a mistake, you might want to contact the blog author and request an invitation."

This must be some kind of unintentional error or bug. For one thing, it's my BIRTHDAY! And who wouldn't let a birthday boy in to the party?

Could it be that the first ever Pharma Blogosphere Survey has brought too much attention to Pharma Watch, which is focused "Life inspiring ideas from the world's laziest pharmaceutical opinion leader?"

Or is it me?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Pharma Gossip and Porn Too?

Many of the blogs in The Pharma Blogosphere have capitalized on the prurient interests of readers -- most of whom must be men -- by including very sexy images and videos, such as this one found recently on PharmaGossip:



I, of course, would never do that! Whoops! My bad! I did reproduce a sexy image of a cheerleader from the NY Times in my post "Sexy Reps Sell Rx."

But that was tame compared to the images and blog topics that Dr. Peter Rost is famous for. Check out, for example, The forbidden Daniela Cicarelli video, which Peter recently posted to his site. He must have a more balanced audience because women readers wanted to sell more male nudity and Rost was happy to comply with these wishes. He even showed pictures of himself as a male model!

Oh! I just remembered another post I did that included male Chippendale dancers (see "Introducing...the All-Pharma Lobbying Lineup!"). A lot good that got me! Look what Cary Byrd at eDrugSearch Blog posted to his site in response:



I get no respect I tell you, no respect!

But getting back to PharmaGossip and Porn. Recently, that blog ran a poll and asked readers "What would make PharmaGossip better than it already is?" There were a number of choices, including "more sex." Here are the results:


Thankfully, sex was not the number 1 choice. Well, if you count the Peter Rost votes as votes for more sex, then sex the number two choice! At least "More Pharma" is number 1. We might all take a lesson from that!

The "Insider," who writes PharmaGossip, may have some plans to beat Rost at his own genre. I notice on the PharmaGossip profile page there is a PharmaPorn blog listed as one of the blog names that the Insider has reserved. Are we soon to see entries in this blog?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Pharma Rag Mocks Mack!

Pharma Rag is the new boy in The Pharma Blogosphere and the very first post there lays into me for calling Dr. Jarvik a fop (see "John Mack Next Fashion Czar?"). "When contacted for comment about his reasons for making what might be construed as homophobic comments and whether he might be considering switching over to consulting to the fashion industry, John did not reply."

I don't remember being asked to comment, but if Gary Pitt, Pharma Rag creator and a bored chap who's looking to make things more interesting, thought the Jarvik fop piece was politically incorrect, he should see my "Girl from Google" post!

According to Pitt, "Pharma Rag is a gossip blog. This site publishes both rumors and conjecture, in addition to accurately reported information." I thought that territory was well-served by PharmaGossip, a blog written by another "chap."

Tell me this. If there are so many "chaps" over there across the pond interested in the pharmaceutical industry, why are there so few UK subscribers to my newsletter (Pharma Marketing News)? Are they just interested in gossip and not more depth? Inquiring minds want to know!