And so, another working week will soon draw to a close. Not a moment too soon, yes? This is, you may recall, our treasured signal to daydream about weekend plans. Our agenda, in fact, is already overflowing. Besides stopping to observe ancient rituals, we plan to celebrate with our Pharmalot ancestor who turns the 90th page on the proverbial calendar, and hang with a couple of our short people. We may even squeeze in another listening party, where the rotation is certain to include this, this, this, this and this. And what about you? Once again, we will remind you that the great outdoors are beckoning — the possibilities include a walk along a lake or beach, a hike in the woods, a saunter down city streets, or meandering through apple orchards and pumpkin patches. Conversely, you could stroll through a museum or visit a moving picture show. This may also be an opportunity to take stock and reach out to someone special. Well, whatever you do, have a grand time. But be safe. Enjoy, and see you on Tuesday, since there is an official holiday on this side of the pond. …
Starboard Value alleged that Pfizer officials threatened legal action against two former top executives who had been working with the activist investor to push for changes at the drugmaker, Reuters writes. In a letter to the Pfizer board, Starboard alleged that Pfizer officials or their representatives threatened former Pfizer chief executive officer Ian Read and former chief financial officer Frank D’Amelio with “costly litigation against them, claw back their prior compensation and cancel some unvested stock” unless they publicly released a statement supporting Pfizer chief executive officer Albert Bourla. Starboard managing member Jeff Smith also suggested the threat “constitutes a clear breach of fiduciary duty,” and asked the board to establish a special committee of directors “with clean hands” to investigate. Starboard built a roughly $1-billion position in the company, which has a $167-billion market capitalization, and said Read and D’Amelio were concerned about the company’s path and offered their assistance.
Nearly 60% of the experts who reviewed manuscripts for four prominent medical journals received at least one payment from industry during a recent three-year period and, overall, these reviewers or their institutions received more than $1 billion from companies, STAT writes, citing a new analysis. Between 2020 and 2022, 1,155 of the 1,962 experts who reviewed studies for The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine received some form of payment. More than half — or 1,060 reviewers — accepted general payments, such as travel, speaking, consulting and food, among other things; 623 of the experts, or 32%, received payments for research. Of the $1.06 billion in payments, $1 billion in research payments were made, which included payments to individual physicians and institutional payments for work where the experts served as principal investigators in clinical studies.
