Yesterday I blogged about CBS News reporting in cheerleading fashion for the drug peramivir on Monday night - providing only anecdotes but no data. As I remind readers of this blog constantly, the plural of anecdote is not data.
I expect a story to include evidence - data - not just hyperbolic language like "lifesaving" and "miraculous."
That opinion really riled many people who wrote to my blog yesterday. Many of them were apparently investors coming from a site called New World Investor, where editor Michael Murphy has praised the prospects of peramivir's manufacturer, Biocryst (BCRX = stock market ticker symbol). When Murphy learned of the CBS piece, he wrote:
"The short interest in BCRX is still so high that this could have a dramatic impact on the stock on Monday and Tuesday. Plus, it will put the FDA in full panic mode to "rush" the Emergency Use Authorization out, and maybe on Health & Human Services to release the first order for peramivir. It should be quite a week; see below on how to trade it."
Adam Feuerstein wrote about Murphy a month ago on TheStreet.com:
"Investment newsletter author Michael Murphy is using swine flu fears and the specter of dead children in an increasingly desperate attempt to pump BioCryst's stock price. ... He goes on to contend that, 'dozens of children have died -- suffocated -- who might have been saved if IV peramivir had been available on a timely basis. What Hurricane Katrina was to FEMA, this unconscionably delayed EUA for peramivir will be to the FDA -- and possibly the whole Obama Administration.'...So, if swine flu is causing countless U.S. children to suffocate to death, hundreds, maybe thousands, of doctors must be swamping BioCryst's switchboard with requests for peramivir shipments, right?
Thursday at an investor conference, BioCryst was asked how many patients have been treated with peramivir under this emergency use program that is endorsed by the FDA.
The company's response: "High single digits."
Really? So, if we give the company the benefit of the doubt, nine patients in the U.S. have been treated with peramivir.
Nine."
Read the user comments that followed that piece, or this piece.
They are strikingly similar to those submitted to my blog yesterday. Several of the visitors to my blog used the same Katrina analogy that Murphy promoted on his website.
I wasn't born yesterday - I can see an orchestrated campaign by investors to pump up their investment.
I'm not going to post any more comments from BCRX investors who claim - as some did - that:
• the CBS piece did, indeed, cite evidence when it "interviewed a man and his physician who agreed that the drug got him out of the ICU alive." The sun didn't come up where I live today; is that evidence that the sun will never shine here again?• "Obama's FDA, with months of advanced warning.appears on the verge of letting more people die from H1N1 than Bush's FEMA did with a few days notice of Katrina." Sick and unoriginal.
• "You may not be an investor or have a dog in the hunt but I cannot believe you would be so negative on this excellent report on CBS unless you did not have some reason to do so. What is it? - Don" Nope, Don, sorry to bust the intrigue. My reason is merely that I can't stand shoddy journalism. Good luck with your investment.
• I won't post anything from anyone who has BCRXMAN as part of their email address, as one critic did. BRCX is the stock market ticker symbol for BioCryst.
• "Your language 'not a shred of evidence" is curious to me. What about the man in the story. His life was saved. Pretty good evidence to me." Good for you. Good luck banking your future on that kind of anecdotal evidence.
• "I see the potential for a 300 percent profit and still believe it will transpire. What and by whom would be the best avenue to get the point accross to the FDA,CDC,and HHS to issue EUA?" The best avenue would be by providing evidence. Data. Period.
So if you're an angry investor, don't even bother to write. I evaluate health care journalism. That's what I did with yesterday's post. If you don't like it, you came to the wrong blog. To anyone who doesn't like my blog comment posting policy, deal with it. Start your own blog. I won't pass along self-serving one-sided stock-inflating hype.
Hi, Gary -
I just learned about this post. Let me start by saying I agree with you. CBS should have included hard data, which I think is your basic point. It would have taken them 20 or 30 seconds to summarize the US Phase II data (not one patient died) or the Japanese Phase III data, and it would have been a better story for it.
I also wanted to assure you that the responses above were not orchestrated - the URL to your post was posted to my Comments area, and a few of my subscribers decided to reply. I have been working on a new issue and didn't see any of this until this morning.
I am surprised that you cited a prime example of shoddy health care journalism in your post. Adam Feuerstein made much of the fact that doctors are not demanding peramivir under the Emergency IND. But he failed to tell his readers something he knew: the FDA has NEVER told ICU doctors peramivir is available, and they have forbidden BioCryst to tell them. Collectively, my subscribers and I have talked to dozens of ICU docs, including some at the largest institutions, and never found one who knew the intravenous antiviral they so desperately need (just ask them!) is already available. I am happy to say it looks like Congress will investigate why the FDA did this and let so many people die. We will find out if there was any pressure from the competitors to not publicize the E-IND and to delay the EUA. The very factor Adam cited as a negative for peramivir is, in fact, damning evidence against the FDA's ability to act in an emergency.
So Gary, when did you stop beating your wife?
I thought to ask after reading Murphy comments to your post. Particularly galling was his insinuation (without a shred of evidence, natch) that Biocryst competitors may have had a hand in delaying the peramivir EUA.
I can't wait for Murphy to extend his list of bogeyman to include the CDC since the agency is keeping peramivir distribution tightly controlled -- so tight, in fact, that I can barely ascertain much difference pre- and post-EUA.
adam feuerstein
For anyone who can "barely ascertain much difference pre- and post-EUA," let me help. Pre-EUA CDC did not revise their antiviral guidelines to tell ICU doctors that peramivir was available under an E-IND. The FDA had a cumbersome, slow process in place for doctors to fill out numerous forms and then talk to FDA before being cleared to use peramivir.
Post-FDA, CDC revised their antiviral guidelines and a simple faxed form gets a doctor the peramivir they need. More doctors requested peramivir in the first day post-EUA than had requested it in the prior four months under the E-IND.
Ascertain that.
Hi Michael -- You can rationalize all you want, the fact remains that peramivir's distribution remains tightly controlled by the CDC and not BioCryst. The drug needs to be requested on a per-patient basis by the individual treating physician. Peramivir remains a niche drug and a flu treatment of last resort.
Where is the huge demand and peramivir orders that you've predicted for months? The U.S. government has already signaled that it has no intention of purchasing the millions of courses of permaivir you predicted. You have no credibility because you're blatantly conflicted. You've accused the FDA and other government officials of complicity in the deaths of children simply to make money on a stock you own.
Can you ascertain that?
Adam
Adam - peramivir is shipped by BioCryst, not by the CDC, in response to a simple faxed form by a doctor to the CDC in which they do not even have to name the patient. Is that "tightly controlled"? It simply adds a delay before the patient can get the drug, with no more control than post-dosage reporting - what is the medical reason for that?
Peramivir is being used as a drug of last resort. Consequently, patient's lives are being saved but they are left with scarred lungs because peramivir was not used early enough. What is the medical reason for that?
You seem to think that because I own the stock, any comments I make are invalid. That is ridiculous. I bought the stock because they have the ONLY intravenous antiviral shown to be effective against the swine flu AND the more deadly mutation now devastating the Ukraine.
But this blog is about health news, and how it is told. In you column today, you summarized a copyrighted document stolen from my website, available to subscribers only. You also revealed the names of the stocks in my sequential trade strategy, available to subscribers only. No other journalist/subscriber has stooped that low in an effort to harm my business.
Do you or does Gary Schwitzer know that there are naked short sellers and paid bashers who try to destroy health care companies? Do you and Gary know that there are health care journalists and columnists who are captured or misled by these people? Have you read the Biovail shareholder lawsuit? Have you read the 60,000 deaths and Dendreon story on deep capture? Can you explain why you extensively quote a "research report" written for short sellers, but think I am "blatantly conflicted" because I own the stock and am doing what I can through my newsletter to get this life-saving drug used widely and early to prevent swine flu deaths?
Look in the mirror, Adam. Karma is a bitch.
Michael -- This is a strange venue for you to respond to my story, but I'll play along. Since Gary's blog is about the way healthcare stories are reported in the media, let's correct your factual errors and misleading statements:
The CDC, not Biocryst, controls peramivir distribution through the national stockpile. That's a simple fact.
The WHO has not found any significant difference in the H1N1 strain infecting people in Ukraine.
http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_11_16/en/index.html
Peramivir isn't being used early because there is no supportive clinical data to establish the drug's efficacy and safety in that regard. That seems to be a valid medical reason, if you ask me.
Your comments aren't invalid, they're just conflicted. Big difference. You own BioCryst shares and your business depends on attracting newsletter subscribers interested in buying the stocks you peddle. That's the lens through which your comments on BioCryst should be viewed.
I'm not sure that holding up Biovail as an example of hedge funds running amuck to destroy a company is a smart one. What you fail to mention in your letter or on this board is that regulatory agencies in Canada and the U.S. both found Biovail responsible for misleading investors and for various other violations of securities law. Moreover, Biovail's own lawsuits against the hedge funds which alleged manipulation were dismissed and/or thrown out by the judges overseeing the cases.
Finally, can you please name the healthcare journalists and columnists who are captured by the short-sellers and paid bashers? Those are your words. Who are you talking about? If you're going to make allegations like that, then please, identity these people and provide proof of your accusations.
We're all waiting.