The Madoff of medicine?

A doctor in the United States is accused of faking data in 21 published studies linked to painkillers such as Vioxx and Celebrex.

There's been so much about corruption in the news lately whether it's on Wall Street or from bugs in cyberspace or scam artists looking to steal our money, our privacy and even our identities. Now there's news of fraud of another kind.

In what has been described as the longest and most wide-ranging case of scientific fraud, Dr. Scott Reuben, a renowned Massachusetts anesthesiologist, has been accused of fabricating data (and in some cases even inventing patients out of thin air) from 1996 to 2008 in 21 published studies. The fraud has rocked the medical community with Scientific American calling Reuben the medical equivalent of Bernard Madoff, the former NASDAQ chairman who is awaiting sentencing for his admitted $65-billion fraud.

Reuben, who is currently on leave from the Baystate Medical Center (located on one of the campuses of Tufts University School of Medicine), studied the use of several drugs to relieve pain and speed recovery after surgery. The hospital has since asked the journals who had published Reuben's work to retract the studies, some of which reported favorable results from Pfizer Inc.'s Bextra, Celebrex and Lyrica and Merck & Co. Inc.'s Vioxx. His research also claimed Wyeth's antidepressant Effexor could be used as a painkiller.

"Dr. Reuben deeply regrets that this happened," his attorney, Ingrid Martin, told the Associated Press. "Dr. Reuben cooperated fully with the peer review committee. There were extenuating circumstances that the committee fairly and justly considered."

While Dr. Reuben's research was not included with the clinical trials that led the US Food and Drug Administration to approve Celebrex and Lyrica, his work was considered widely influential on how doctors treat surgery patients for pain.

"Doctors have been using (his) findings very widely," said Dr. Steven Shafer, editor of Anesthesia and Analgesia. "His findings had a huge impact on the field."

As a result of Dr. Reuben's fabricated studies, Shafer said researchers would need to re-examine the literature and may be forced to repeat clinical trials.

Critics condemn 'marketing studies'

According to media reports, Pfizer gave Reuben five research grants between 2002 and 2007, and he was also a paid member of the company's speakers bureau, giving talks about Pfizer drugs to colleagues.

Pfizer said in a statement that it was not involved in the conduct of any of these independent studies or in the interpretation or publication of the study results.

"Independent clinical research advances disease treatments and improves the lives of patients," Raymond F. Kerins Jr., a Pfizer spokesman, told The New York Times. "As part of such research, we count on independent researchers to be truthful and motivated by a desire to advance care for patients. It is very disappointing to learn about Dr. Scott Reuben's alleged actions."

Pharmaceutical companies routinely hire physicians to conduct studies of drugs that are already approved. Companies say these studies are legitimate preliminary investigations of new uses for their products. But critics allege that drug companies often underwrite studies of little scientific merit in hopes of persuading doctors to prescribe the medicines more often.

As a result of the Reuben fraud, some critics are calling for a crackdown on the use of small scientific studies for ‘marketing purposes'.

Sirius XM Preparing for Possible Bankruptcy

Sirius XM is preparing to file for bankruptcy and could do so within days, the New York Times is reporting. According to the article, the move might be a calculated act to pressure Dish Network and EchoStar owner Charles Ergen into making an offer for acquisition. The Wall Street Journal says he offered to purchase the merged satellite radio group late last year and was then brushed off. Despite previous rejections, he's recently reaffirmed his desire try again. If it wasn't before, the honeymoon is now officially over.

the Web Without Links?

Should you be sued for linking?

In an age where the web appears to be getting more and more open, with the rise of data portability and everybody sharing stuff with everybody else, it is fascinating to see that a newspaper publisher is suing another one that is linking to its content.

GateHouse Media Inc., which owns 125 Massachusetts newspapers as well as web properties like WickedLocal.com, sued the New York Times Co.. because its Boston.com-run website "Your Town Newton" was posting headlines and small article snippets from WickedLocal.com.

Now the snippets linked to the original site, but that was not good enough for GateHouse. The company claimed that this created confusion over where the content originated, and leads to readers missing out on advertisements from WickedLocal.com's front page.

It seemed that GateHouse was not considering the very real possibility that readers would never have made it to their site in the first place had Boston.com's site not driven them there. Then readers would be missing out on the ads on the article pages too, and frankly, I can't see how that would help GateHouse's cause. Boston.com offers its parent company's stance on the matter:

In a statement, New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said the company is simply doing what hundreds of other news sites already do -- aggregate headlines and snippets of relevant stories published elsewhere on the Web -- and believed GateHouse's lawsuit was without merit.

"Far from being illegal or improper, this practice of linking to sites is common and is familiar to anyone who has searched the Web," Mathis said. "It is fair and benefits both Web users and the originating site."

It was like GateHouse was not interested in expanding its web traffic. Traffic comes from links. And many, many sites drive traffic to other sites by doing exactly what Boston.com did. They show article titles and snippets and link to the original.

Ever looked at a Google SERP? Ever shared a link on Facebook? Ever browsed tech news on Techmeme? Digg? Most publications would love to be linked to via these venues.

The two sides have since settled this little argument, the terms of the settlement can be read here (adobe Acrobat reader required, you can get that here) . Under the terms of the settlement, the New New York Times Co. has agreed to remove all GateHouse feeds that contain headlines and ledes from Boston.com.

GateHouse will implement solutions that prevent the copying of its content from its sites and RSS feeds. "Nothing shall prevent either party from linking or deep-linking to the other party's websites," provided that the other conditions are met. The agreement of course applies to all of GateHouse's and the New York Times Co.'s properties.

So there you have it. It's settled, but the topic is still up for debate is it not? Who would've won this case? Fair use still exists right? As Paid Content points out though, the New York Times Co. is in no position to deal with a lengthy and costly legal battle.

To me, it still seems like GateHouse's loss. It should be interesting to see how much difference in traffic there is after losing the Boston.com links. Yes, they can still "link" to them, but I would imagine the rate of links will be drastically reduced. After this, I'd be surprised if they still wanted to link to them anyway.

Microsoft meeting with Yahoo : Report

Microsoft's chief executive, Steve Ballmer, met with Yahoo chairman Roy Bostock in New York this week, according to a report in the New York Times.

The newspaper cited an unnamed source who had been briefed on the meeting, but no details of the conversation have been released.

Yahoo's appointment of Carol Bartz as chief executive has heightened speculation that the companies may be able to agree on a takeover, with Microsoft possibly acquiring Yahoo's search engine business.

The news follows reports of an informal conversation between Bartz and Ballmer after she was selected by Yahoo's board.

Jerry Yang, who has stepped down as the head of Yahoo, let a deal with Microsoft fall through last year, angering many of the company's investors.

Yahoo didn't immediately return a call for comment, and Microsoft declined to comment.