'Round the Sphere: Not-as-black-as-you-think-you-are and Blog Schmog Point-Counterpoint

Jim Edwards over at BrandweekNRX wonders whether "not-as-black-as-you-think-you-are" genes are responsible for lackluster sales of BiDil -- the first drug approved specifically for "self identified" African Americans. Jim posits that maybe this group is not as black as they think they are and casts doubt on "race-based medicine" (see "BiDil Falters, Casting Doubts on Race-Based Medicine").

John Mack, over at Pharma Marketing Blog, believes this is a bogus argument and places BiDil's problems squarely in marketing's court (see "BiDil Sales Disappoint: Blame Genes or Marketing?"). As usual, I don't just criticize, I offer an innovative solution to the problem of marketing to minorities.

Meanwhile, Agnes Shanley over at On Pharma is casting some doubt of her own and questions the utility of blogs: "Zube-gate aside, rumors of your power to change the world have been greatly exaggerated," says Shanley (see "Blog, Schmlog: Tales from the Dark Side of Web 2.0").

"I Beg to Differ!," says Fard Johnmar over at HealthcareVOX. "To say that blogs are not significantly influencing health and healthcare is far from correct," says Fard (see "Agnes Shanley Says 'Blog Schmog'; I Beg To Differ").

Agnes has been posting some very interesting things on her blog lately and seems to have picked up some pointers from the rest of the pack, especially heating things up with some controversial postings.

Don't worry about lack of comments, Agnes. Keep up the good work and I am sure the comments will follow. It's not the quantity of comments you receive, but the quality and whether or not they move the discussion forward and teach us a thing or two.

Speaking of moving the discussion forward: don't bother making any comments here if all you are doing is pointing out my shortcomings! I am fully briefed on that subject. Just stick to the subject at hand and I am glad to pass your comments on. Otherwise, hasta la vista, baby!

'Round the Sphere: Capitalizing on VA Tech Tragedy, Rost Roasts Mack, the PharmaBlog Band

Let me start with the hottest topic making the rounds of the Pharma Blogosphere^TM (and the world in general): the VA Tech Tragedy. We all want to show our support for the students of VA Tech, their families, the victims, and especially the families of the victims. Bloggers in the Pharma Blogosphere are no exception and several of us expressed our thoughts in one way or another.

Fard Johnmar at HealthcareVOX observed a daylong moment of silence on April 18; Pharma Marketing Blog (my blog) followed suit on April 19.

Pharma Giles touched upon the anti-depressant drug link issue ("No Sense at all.."), but confessed "I don't feel like trying to be funny for a while. My heart goes out to the families of those who died at Blacksburg on the morning of the 16th."

But Drug Wonks -- opportunists that they are -- immediately saw the chance to stick it to the anti-anti-depressant folks in their post "The Sorrow and the Pity." Is it OK because they prefaced their comments with "Virginia Tech sorrow and media SSRI hysteria notwithstanding, some important new science ..."? I don't think so!

Pharm Aid got its ass in a wringer when it posted "Anti-Science Propaganda" which I guess could be characterized as a screed in line with the Drug Wonk sentiment, but going a step further by characterizing the anti-anti-depressant crowd as "anti-science crowd." Pharm Aid must have gotten a lot of flack in comments because it had to announce that it would henceforth moderate comments. Good idea!

The Howard Stern of the Pharma Blogosphere!?
Which brings me to the roast that Rost wrought upon me, in which he accused me of "spinning" the results of the Pharma Blogosphere Survey, compared me to shock jock Howard Stern (I guess he doesn' have Don Imus to kick around any more), and berated me for sullying the good name of Agnes Shanley, author of On Pharma blog. You can find his comments here.

"To be, or not to be,--that is the question:--whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?"

Oh, what the hell! I'll choose the arms! Here's my response to Peter, which I would like to make public here:

Peter, Peter, Peter! You don't need no stinkin' survey to be popular and help you promote yourself! You're doing a great job all by yourself.

BTW, regarding the Pharma Blogosphere Survey, all the analysis was done by a third party expert in data analysis. Also, you and all the other bloggers in the survey, will receive the raw data soon and can make your own hay out of it!

I just want a bit of exclusivity considering how much work I put into this -- including giving away my products (reprints and special supplements to my Pharma Marketing News newsletter) to participants as a thank you.

Is it too much to ask that I get my chance to bask in the sun? After all, my blog didn't win top prize and I haven't dissed the winner [I should correct that: the TOP five blogs, eg, In the Pipeline] as you have!

Regarding the Cafe Pharma quotes let me say this: I have no recollection of that!

Just kidding. Really, you know it was all done tongue-in-cheek, don't you? Perhaps I took it a step too far, but putting me in the same league as Howard Stern and Imus is really unfair, you lilly-white ho!

What you may not know is that I have been in contact with Agnes Shanley who wrote in an unsolicited e-mail: "Thanks...for the link and writeup. Have been chuckling about it all morning, and hope it generates some discussion. Your points were all good/true, too." [I don't think she meant that the comments attributed to "anonymous" were good and true. Everyone, I hope, realizes that those comments were taken from unrelated Cafe Pharma posts and were meant to illustrate how "uncivil" some people can be online. Sorry, if there was any confusion about that. See also Agnes' post: “Tough Love” from John Mack?] I have since helped Agnes by noting that her comments were not working and that's why her site is not getting comments from readers! No one else took the time or effort to give her a heads up!

So, I like to think that I give as much as I take and I hope most bloggers in the Pharma Blogosphere will back me up on that!

Can I hear an Amen?

Let Me Introduce You to the Band
PharmaGossip's PharmaBlog Band that is! Guess who's the lead guitar? See him here. Peter Rost, Ed Silverman, and Jack Friday himself are the backup members.

We Are Family
In a few short months I have seen the Pharma Blogosphere blossom into a strong family that has garnered a lot of attention. Much credit has to go to Peter Rost and journalist bloggers like Jim Edwards, Ed Silverman, and the guys at the WSJ Health Blog, for accelerating this process.

A growing family is bound to have problems as we learn to live together. So, just because this week Peter and I seem to be at odds, it doesn't mean we are dysfunctional. At least I hope not. Sometimes we can go too far and I am sorry.

That's it. I've done apologizing! Now back to the music...

Civility on CafePharma: Oxymoronic Wishhful Thinking

On Pharma has taken on CafePharma, calling for "a little civility" (see "How About a Little Civility, On-Line and Off? Thoughts on Cafe Pharma and Blogger Kathy Sierra’s Call for a Code of Conduct").

To respond to this call for a code of conduct, I decided that a point-counterpoint approach would be entertaining if not enlightening. I will take the point whereas a colleague -- let's call him/her "anonymous" -- will handle the counterpoint.

Point (John Mack): Forgive me for saying so, Ms. Shanley (who I assume wrote the On Pharma post), but a call for civility on CafePharma is a bit oxymoronic, wouldn't you say? It would be in the realm of other famous oxymorons like "military intelligence" and "ethical pharmaceuticals."

Please don't take my criticisms personally; I really enjoy your blog and urge everyone to read it, although I note that no one has bothered to comment on your post or any other post on your blog that I can see. Not that that's a bad thing! But you are free to throw rocks at CafePharma because you don't live in a glass house like it does. What I mean to say -- and forgive me for being so blunt and please realize that this is "tough love" from a friend -- you are not saying anything that your readers seem to care strongly about. Consequently, you don't have to put up with any nasty, heat-of-the-moment comments. A code of conduct, therefore, would be easy for you to implement, but would be impossible for CafePharma, which has over 14,000 over-sexed registered users and gazillions of posts! Again, forgive me for being so critical. I think you are a wonderful person.

Counterpoint (anonymous): The only word that can accurately describe you is inept. Are you kidding me? Stick your ethics up your ass. Listen up, you skeevy retard: You should have clean hands before you start spewing moral turpitude...Typing fagbot on an internet forum is not the same thing as screaming it out while waiting at the counter for my BK Broiler. You remain an idiot! Selfish egotistical asshole. If you are so interested in doing the right thing why don't you ... get into a circle jerk?

["anonymous" quotes were abstracted from several actual CafePharma posts.]

'Round the Sphere: No Stinkin' Thinkin' Blogger Award for Me!

I'd like to thank all the Pharma Bloggers out there who did NOT nominate ME as one of the five blogs that make YOU think. NOT!

It's not enough that bloggers get kudos from a survey of readers that I worked so hard on, they also have to go around awarding themselves awards! I'm talking about something called "Thinking Blogger Awards."

It works like a f**kin' chain letter! The worst kind of self-congratulatory accolade there is!

Here are the rules:

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think,
2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,
3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote (here is an alternative silver version if gold doesn't fit your blog).

The chain started sometime last month and has finally wended its way to The Pharma Blogosphere. I traced the first Pharma Blogosphere occurrence at Clin Psych Blog ("Only Five?"), which "tagged" PharmaGossip, who tagged his "Brit" buddy over at Pharma Giles (Jack also tagged Peter Rost, who hasn't yet tagged any blog in return), who tagged On Pharma, which hasn't tagged any blog yet (hint: tag me, tag me, no me!).

Not only don't I get tagged, but Pharma Giles adds insult to injury by dissin' my rating scale, by which I recently divide The Pharma Blogosphere into two domains: "Major Planets" and "Minor Planets, et al" (see right). All I can say is "Giles, you're on thin ice! Keep it up and gravity, which we all know sucks, may whiplash you into the asteroid belt of The Pharma Blogosphere!"

The way these things work, I predict that EVERY blog in The Pharma Blogosphere will be "tagged" before the end of next month. The ball is now in Rost's and On Pharma's court. Who 'ya goin' to tag?

The Dead Horse
Other than this, nothing else much has been happening 'Round the Sphere worthy of talking about. O yeah, one thing. Jim Edwards and the dead horse. Not that I want to rehash this debate, but it’s nice to know that the CDC took my position and not my opponents’.