"For my part," continued Friede, "the CEI paper was not offered or characterized as empirical evidence on any point. The language was carefully chosen to say that FDA’s policy “could have” the unintended effect postulated. The matter certainly deserves careful consideration and study. I would submit that your quick look at Google probably does not qualify as such an analysis. As for doing a disservice to FDA, I think that raising important arguments like these for consideration by everyone affirmatively serves FDA’s interests in having all of the arguments on all sides vetted. That is the essence of transparency."Since Friede cites transparency, I would like to reveal the communications I have been having with the authors of this report, who have chosen not to respond in comments to my blog.
Greg Conko, the other co-author of the CEI report, also emailed me. "I was tempted to let Arnie's reply speak on my behalf as well," said Conko. "But I thought it was worth repeating Arnie's point that we, in our paper, suggest only that a diminution in paid links by pharma companies 'could' result in raising the visibility of links for unregulated products, most of which are of unknown or dubious quality. It's a simple proposition: In a world characterized by A and B, a smaller number of A without a change in the number of B implies a higher proportion of B."
You twice accurately quote us as claiming this 'could' occur, but then you misleadingly write that we "claim that the void has been filled by ads of 'dubious validity'," and allege to have knocked down this strawman. The questionable validity of your test results aside, you'd think that someone who so glibly uses such phrases as "carefully wrought bullshit" and "complete disregard for facts" might be a little more careful with his own arguments.Freide ended his email in a similar vien:
It is, of course, your prerogative to suggest that what we wrote is unlikely, or that you are confident upon further examination it will prove to be untrue. I, however, suspect that, upon further examination, we will find a proportionately larger number of links for unregulated products as for regulated ones.
As for characterization that what we have written is “Carefully Wrought BS”, both Greg and I are lawyers and, at least as to me, it is not the first time, nor will it likely be the last time, that someone has called what I have said “BS”. I am prepared to be judged on the merits of the analysis, including the analysis in CEI’s recent comments to FDA and the attached article of mine from FDLI Update titled, “Yes We Can: Time for an FDA Drug Advertising Policy”It appears that Friede speaks for Conko and vice versa.
Unlike lawyers, my goal is not to argue in order to win my case. At least I offered evidence -- albeit flawed -- that Friede and Conko's premise was false (in a real court, I "could" win if the jury saw my "evidence" even if it had no scientific merit. Unlike the FDA, juries and the public in general are not swayed so much by science as they are by carefully wrought BS). More importantly, however, is my challenge to everyone out there to provide BETTER evidence that CEI's premise is true. Only with such evidence will the FDA be swayed to change its opinion.
It is not within my capability to provide the needed evidence. Friede & Conko should have done that instead of imagining what "could" happen. Many things can happen if suddenly there were no more pharma paid search advertising. Google stock shares "could" lose 30% of their value! Maybe I should write a report claiming that "could" happen and short sell Google! Now there's an idea worth pursuing.