Unfortunately, it is very credible that BSX statisticians provided all the number crunching for the PI, as well as having created the presentation data slides.
The PI's words are his own, but there is no doubt the presentation is steered somewhat by the spectrum of slides he is given to choose from beforehand.
This is not a problem unique to Boston - it is a general problem inherent in corporate sponsorship of medical research.
Why don't you ask Dr. Colombo who prepared his slides for the national presentations. Answer (Boston marketing group!). I agree, I think we should all vomit at this dishonest practice of spin and deceipt.
It is well known that BSX provides the data and the presentation for their PIs in Taxus 2. Antonio Colombo had not seen his own talk more than a few hours before. This may not reach the Wall Street Journal, but, sadly it is the truth. BSX is well known for sanitizing and spinning their data. This is no secret among most cardiologists.
My goodness hicath8, if you have proof of what you report you should run to the nearest press agent and give it to them!! Those are serious allegations you have made.
If I see a press release from a reputable press agency in the next few days, I may think that your post has merit.
Otherwise, you are spewing crap. (Most probable)
I'll keep my eye out for Reuter�s reports, various press releases, and the Wall Street Journal for their follow-up of your allegations.
But, I think I'll see nothing. You report crap.
Please don't respond here, I'll keep my eye out with the reputable news agencies for your verifiable reply. Please quote your alias (hicath8) in the press release so I'll know it was you.
Wish I was a BSC sales rep!!! But I am not. Big dollars in that job. I took the alias when there was a lot of JNJ supporters on this board.
Also, BSC in the past was very bad at spinning to the Investor community. I think they have changed that for the better, being a BSC stock holder.
Anyway, we will see if you are right or wrong in the near future.
Just because you are a sales rep for BSX does not mean that you have to believe their spinning nonsense. If you look closely at the Taxus 2 data, there are several interesting points. First, where is the angiographic or IVUS data? Once again we do not get any quantitative data to assess efficacy of taxol after 6 months. Next, they omitted "confounders" from analysis (i.e., probably patients with bad results, perhaps with a bare stent on an edge dissection etc.) This is not really legal in a clinical trial. Next, somehow bypass surgery was not counted as a target vessel failure !! Wow ! Stent thrombosis occurred late (after plavix was stopped) in two of the taxol patients and none of the controls. They pooled the control data to try to get statistical endpoints that were significant (after eliminating bypass cases and confounding cases). They gave the presentation to the principal investigtaor, not the other way around (i.e, they created the data set that they wanted shown after they filtered it). Finally the target vessel failure rate with taxol was actually identical at 6 and 12 months to the bare Bx Velocity from the 300 patient VENUS study in the U.S (Bx had TVR 4.6% at 6 months and 10% at 12 months vs taxol 5.7% at 6 months and 10% at 12 months). i.e., taxol in very low risk patients (Taxus 2 is lower risk than VENUS) had same outcomes as a "thick strutted' bare stent !! Ravel trial with sirolimus is much closer to Taxus 2 and had 0% TLR at 6 months and 0.8% TVR at 12 months. Much better than Taxus 2 in much smaller vessels (2.5 mm Ravel vs. 2.85 mm reference vessels in Taxus 2). Express 2 is a bad and old stent design (like a tetra) and is embolizing at a rate that is 1,000 times greater than Bx Velocity. Those are the facts. BSX is the master BS spin machine.