Rapid Responses to:

NEWS: Jeanne Lenzer Drug company seeks to suppress internal memos BMJ 2007; 334: 59 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Eli Lilly Ought to Consider Publishing the Documents

Roy M Poses   (17 January 2007)

Lilly's "Spin"

Donald J. Farber   (27 January 2007)

Eli Lilly Ought to Consider Publishing the Documents 17 January 2007
Roy M Poses, President Foundation for Integrity and Resposibility in Medicine, 16 Cutler St., Warren, RI, 02885, USA Send response to journal: Re: Eli Lilly Ought to Consider Publishing the Documents	Eli Lilly and Company has a right to a fair trial and to protect its interests. However, if the company wants to gain the trust of health care professionals, it ought to consider publishing all the relevant documents. As long as it continues attempts to suppress them, the suspicion will remain that it has something to hide. There may be a down-side to revealing information that puts company managers in an unflattering light, but there is also a down-side to promoting opacity rather than transparency. Furthermore, according to the principles of evidence-based medicine, to make the best possible decisions for individual patients, patients and their physicians need the best possible evidence about the benefits and harms of therapy. Thus, they have a need to know about such evidence, and about any attempts to suppress or manipulate it, particularly by interested parties, such as pharmaceutical companies. On this basis, if Eli Lilly and Company truly wants to put patients' interests first, the company again ought to consider to publishing all relevant documents, and let patients and physicians decide how they affect interpretation of this evidence. The New York Times has reported that the effort to put this particular cat back in its bag continues (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/technology/15link.html/). Competing interests: None declared
Lilly's "Spin" 27 January 2007
Donald J. Farber, Attorney at Law San Rafael, CA 94903 Send response to journal: Re: Lilly's "Spin"	I have no dog in this fight directly, but allow one to state the obvious: Eli Lilly's lack of credibility is proven by attribution to the judge and "protective order" for its refusal to release to the media and public the documents in question. The documents are Lilly's and they can do with them what they want...and the judge could care less. Just another example of the "spin" Big Pharma uses to justify secrecy of incriminating data and hide behind others while doing so. The good news for plaintiffs' attorneys is that Big Pharma's disastrous public relation practices, such as this, play right into our hands and they never seem to get it. Donald J. Farber, Esq. 175 North Redwood Drive, Suite 130, San Rafael, CA 94903. Competing interests: Plaintiffs' Attorney in Drug Product Liability Cases (but have not sued Eli Lilly)