Baylor study questions

General Discussion
#67

Quite a lot of unjustified exaggeration here about what has been written about Baylor that might have warranted “moderation”. Especially the suggestion that there were calls for violence in relation to Baylor is a gross but convenient hyperbole, in my opinion (but I would like to see quotes). Seriously, we are not kids here who can be so easily manipulated with words…

I have posted in the past incontrovertible facts about who has funded whom and when. Whether this amounts to an “accusation” or “revealing relevant truth” is a subjective judgement. Facts speak louder than any opinion.

#68

Something that I have not posted in the past, however, and which I think is relevant for understanding how Merck handles potentially unfavorable studies, is this:

“Lanier pressed her about written recommendations to gain each doctor’s support for Vioxx. In one case, the document said, “Show me the money” and then noted Merck had provided him with $25,000 to support a program to examine treatment of arthritis.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8628576/ns/health-arthritis/t/did-merck-target-doctors-critical-vioxx/#.XjNF3SNOluk

This (and whatever else I have posted before) is highly relevant information and we should take it into account when we plan our future steps as a community, in my modest opinion.

4 Likes
#69

Anyways, the idea that there shouldnt be any thread about baylor is almost insulting to me. Let the people voice their frustrations if need be. Some do go overboard with that, but still. That cant result in the topic baylor being banned altogether.

4 Likes
#70

Not really. If you aren’t seeing the veiled threats of violence toward a PFS researcher in retaliation for circumstances that are almost certainly beyond his control, then it’s because the comments were hidden or edited out. I personally had to do this more than once in a previous Baylor topic.

@Greek is simply stating a friendly reminder to prevent this from happening again.

1 Like
#71

Members here really need to appreciate that the scientific process can sometimes take much longer than anticipated. There was another big PFS study (already published now) that took several years longer than expected to be published. The difference was the other delayed study wasn’t publicized within the community before it was published like this Baylor study. It takes time to get everything in order, make sure your data is correct, and get the article approved which is especially time consuming because the approval process can be political and PFS is controversial.

Dr. Khera is a very busy person, this isn’t his number one priority, he is a supporter of the existence of PFS, but the study will take an unpredictable time to come out. I think I read on the forum that the first part of the study has been submitted and is awaiting feedback. That update speaks for itself. It may not be approved in this current submission and may need to be re-submitted elsewhere.

Based on my understanding of what the two part study will present, it isn’t going to offer a cure or treatment, but it will hopefully help further recognition and our understanding of the syndrome. The abstract of the first part of the study is basically public and has been posted on this forum. The second part is looking for patterns in gene expression within PFS patients. If successful, he will have identified genes that are more likely to exist in PFS patients.

That’s about all there is to know about the Baylor study right now. I personally don’t expect it will be earth shattering, I do hope it will be published at some point, and I am optimistic that it will but I am not sure when. I do not believe that Dr. Khera is a Merck shill although it does seem like Merck did try to grease his palms as is a typical move for Merck sadly. Just because he accepted a $30k speaking engagement does not mean he is obligated to do anything for Merck and that is not even very much money compared to a doctor’s salary in the US.

2 Likes
#72

Greasing one’s palms is a very nice expression that I hadn’t heard before. They just don’t teach you these when you study English as a foreign language.

No doubt the $33k that Merck wired Khera a month after the Baylor study was announced to promote the deadly drug Fosamax (which is not in his specialty) was just that indeed.

Also no doubt, Dr. Khera talked a lot about the drug’s pesky side effects on that speaking tour such as the atypical Fosamax-fractures and the dissolving of joints from phosphorus that Merck otherwise had been denying.

As we know, Merck employs a variety of tactics to “neutralize” researchers - including threats to withhold future grants for research or funding from university departments.

Do we know the statistics for Dr. Khera’s total research grants since 2013 or the grants his institution Baylor received and how much of it if any came from Merck?

No doubt a leading medical school receives grants from a leading pharmaceutical company as is customary in that line of business, and no doubt a young researcher would not rise professionally if the school administrators are not happy with their work for one reason or another.

Beyond these questions, the only fact we know is that 9 years after the start of the study, the substantive part of the research will not have published (I am making the fair assumption it wont publish in the next 1.5 years).

I don’t think Merck could have asked for anything more in 2013. Class action law suits, drug patents, and statutes or limitations are all in the past.

Only the mansions remain. And the graves - including among Dr. Khera’s research sample.

3 Likes
#73

Isn’t this the same researcher?

#74

$35k doesn’t exactly pay for a mansion and the study isn’t dead, it’s still a work in progress. There’s no real evidence to show that Dr. Khera fell under Merck’s influence. You could say that the delay in the study is proof, but it really isn’t, and delays are very common in scientific research. It’s an unsupported conspiracy theory and isn’t helpful to anybody here. Merck did try to interfere in Propecia’s scientific research process, but I am sorry to disappoint you that they didn’t get Dr. Khera. Just because Merck is an organization that does do these kinds of things, does not mean that every attempt they make is successful or that every semblance of a conspiracy is one.

1 Like
#75

I never said 33k pays for a mansion and I never said Dr. Khera has a mansion. (Merck executives do for sure though.) So these arguments are moot.

If you read carefully I am saying that a lot more than 33k is at stake in the Khera-Merck relationship.

What exactly from what I said is not true and what is a conspiracy theory?

Pharma companies don’t donate money to medical schools?

Pharma companies don’t give grants for research?

Young researchers don’t depend on their school’s good will for promotion?

Merck does not threaten, intimidate, bribe and neutralize researchers?

Law suits, patents and statues of limitations on finasteride are not all in the past?

8% of Dr. Khera’s sample are not dead?

The study won’t have published 9 years after being announced?

Fosamax for osteoporosis is not within Dr. Khera’s specialty?

Foxamax is not a deadly drug?

Merck has not concealed the truth on Fosamax?

Khera did not receive 33k from Merck to promote Fosamax one month after Baylor was announced?

I just want to hear one thing that I said that is not true…

2 Likes
#76

You’re implying that those are all of those are reasons or may be reaosons that explain why the study is delayed but they’re simply not.

If you want one example of something you said that isn’t true, not that it even matters whether what you said is true or not, but endocrinologists do often use Fosamax.

This distrust of the PFS research process is very counterproductive. If you don’t believe the study will be published that’s fine, but move on to focus your energy on something else. There’s nothing you can do about Baylor now but there’s plenty to be done about other things. Not every effort will be a success so if the study gets published at some point, that will be great.

1 Like
#77

That’s exactly what I have been trying to do, including on this site. I have actually made the argument that we need to forget about Baylor - as we really should - and should instead try to recreate the most important parts of Baylor (in my opinion gene expression of 5ar2 in prepuce but maybe more) separately as soon as possible. Unfortunately that didn’t gain much traction, not least because the treads were taken down…

1 Like
#78

No scientist or researcher will be eager to recreate a study that is already completed but just needs to be published. Baylor has a good chance of being published still, just with delays. No need to continue spreading unsubstantiated conspiracy theories here. Those kind of claims for better or worse require tangible evidence.

1 Like
#79

What’s actually counterproductive is sitting and waiting for Baylor when there is enough potential and pent-up demand for action to initiate another study.

2 Likes
#80

And yet Melcangi measured gene expression of a gene in PFS people just this year…

1 Like
#81

What kind of evidence do you think will suffice? I am just curious. A video of Merck influencing Khera?

I did give a good lead for potential evidence - the funding Khera’s research program AND the university might have received from Merck. If you show me that both of these were 0 dollars since 2013, I will officially retract my “conspiracy theory”.

Let’s try to find Baylor’s sources of funding. We are all good researchers here.

2 Likes
#82

Melcangi conducted a very different study. He looked at a single gene rather than the hundreds or thousands that are being investigated for the Khera study.

In any case, I am not waiting for Khera’s study or anybody else’s. I’m just contributing where I can and don’t criticize other efforts unless my criticism is useful for whatever reason. I don’t really have much else to say about this.

1 Like
#83

Yes, and that’s what I think we should do more of - measure expression of key genes such as 5ar. Maybe I shouldn’t have said “recreate” (the most important part of) Baylor then. Even better!

I happen to believe criticizing Baylor is extremely useful - the single most useful thing we can talk about. First, because knowing the truth is important, and I have said nothing but the truth about Baylor. Second, because I think sitting and waiting for Baylor (and not initiating other studies) is detrimental for us. Third, because we need to understand what actually happened at Baylor and not fool ourselves so we don’t repeat this mistake going forward.

Also I don’t see how any rational person would not criticize Baylor in the context of what is happening in our community. Do you have any idea how many innocent young men have died in 9 years - are dying every day! - while Dr. Khera is very busy with other things because he owes us nothing even though he received a huge grant, the Foundation’s last remaining money?

I have said in the past that Khera is the only person with the fire hose in front of a burning building with people dying inside literary every day and he is doing nothing. That is not an inappropriate metaphor. The foundation gave its last money for Baylor, as far as I know, so there is no money for another fire hose. That’s a big moral responsibility on the person who holds the only fire hose. So yes, he does owe us something for having accepted the grant.

Further, Baylor has been touted as a cornerstone study that is going to determine the direction of future research. It is not just one of many studies that can run in parallel. There has absolutely been a lot of waiting for and relying on Baylor - for many years - before other studies can be planned and set in motion. That makes the moral responsibility on Khera even higher.

Finally, as I have said before, Khera’s potential findings are already moot via-a-vis Merck’s interest in finasteride, in my opinion. Class action law suits have passed, patents have passed, statute of limitations since insert change have passed… Merck doesn’t care any more. Khera can publish anything now. Although no doubt he won’t be in a huge rush. I don’t think the substantive part of the study is completed as you said.

8 Likes
#84

Oh, look. Turns out I am not a dissident; I am a copy-cat!

1 Like
#85

Well we do agree that it makes sense to move on, if not much else. You omitted the part of Awor’s post that said the person most close in contact with Khera believes he is on our side and there are other issues getting in the way, including the complexity of the analysis. Khera did after all publish an literature review supportive of PFS earlier this year.

It isn’t helpful to anybody on here to complain although I understand the frustration. Take that frustrated energy and find a way to channel it into other that’s that are productive. If you think a gene expression analysis is very important, go raise funds and get that organized. If you don’t have the means to do that yourself, then contribute in other ways that you can.

3 Likes
#86

If Baylor is dead I wish they would tell us so we can move on.

1 Like