Oakes and McCafferty Smith Kline Beecham

I was copied in on Matthew Holford's latest email to the 'usual suspects'.

It deserves a wider audience.

Fid


From: Matthew Holford
To: johnsona@parliament.uk ; alasdair.breckenridge@mhra.gsi.gov.uk ; kent.woods@mhra.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: Shailesh Vara

Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:00 AM
Subject: Efficacy of Paroxetine in the Treatment of Adolescent Major Depression: A Randomized, Controlled Trials

Gentlemen,

There's that word, again: efficacy! Could you explain to me how it is that two SKB employees have their names on this (toilet) paper? That's Oakes and McCafferty, to save you looking. http://www.jaacap.com/pt/re/jaacap/abstract.00004583-200107000-00010.htm;jsessionid=Hl8WfvyFqqHnXGPWJHX1mFJfl4mCnQQL8TYQg5LLc7vxfrRD2fh2!1219373867!181195629!8091!-1

Is this a joke? I've got the MHRA telling me that it relies on peer-reviewed papers, (when making marketing authorization assessments), which appear to be written by the very same fucking people who make the snake oil remedies.

The MHRA also tells me that this is a satisfactory alternative to troubling themselves to establish what "efficacy" means, in the context of any given drug (there's that "taken on trust" nonsense, again). We already know that this paper was written by Sally Laden, a ghostwriter, in collusion (I don't think that's too strong a word) with McCafferty. That the other charlatans and snake oil salesmen had the audacity to enter it on their CVs is still a mystery to me.

Arse:elbow. Do you note the difference? "Elbow" is the primary criteria, which has to outweigh "arse". OK? These are your rules, not mine.

Best regards

Matthew Holford

Read more of Matt's correspondence with the MHRA here