Dr. Howard Scher is SLIME!
Well, here is more concrete proof that Dr. (scumb bag… etc) Howard Scher had a very big public interest in seeing Provenge fail. He will be involved with Phase 3 studies of ASCENT-2 for a Prostate Cancer treatment called Asentar. (article)
So basically he bashed the hell out of Provenge while he was setting up for a Phase 3 trial of a competing PC treatment.
PC Groups, please file a Civil lawsuit against this MoFo. I mean there is only so much blatant corruption people can take, and this is affecting a persons right to live.
Observing the big boy players involved makes me realize exactly who put pressure on whom, and how this thing unfolded. Horrible, simply horrible. The more powerful lobby own. DNDN had the science behind them, but not a strong enough lobby.
I am sick to my stomatch.
June 18th, 2007 at 2:34 am
I must be careful what I state?
you already called him a cocksucker.
pussy.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
my father went to scher,
he is dead now, six months later. scher took him off a chemotheraphy combination that was showing a decrease in a tumor he had and looked him straight in the eye saying “i am certain that it is the carboplatin part of this mix that is working.” of course, it didn’t work. i wonder what his stake in carboplatin is? i spoke with another dr. and he was shocked that scher put someone with protate cancer on carboplatin.
August 10th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
amy, my Condolences on the loss of your Father! Mine’s been gone 33 years and I still miss him greatly. Know others care about your loss!
Scher seemed to represent to the FDA via his Feb 2007 Application for a Waiver to serve on the Provenge Advisory Committee that he has 1 stock ownership (between $5,000 and $100,000) and 2 “Grants (Related)” each between $100,000 and $300,000.
Publicly available information shows these apparent Scher COIs (so far): [Particular attention is directed to items 1, 2 and—especially–15, but ALL—in totality– are important and telling, imo]
1. Novcea: STUDY CHAIR of DN-101; Grants & Research support
2. Medivation, Inc: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR MDV3100;
3. Innovive Pharmaceuticals: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
4. Infinity Pharmaceuticals: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
5. Cougar Biotechnology: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR; Advisory Board
6. Department of Defense: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR PC Clinical Trials-P1 and P2
7. Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultant, Grants & Research support
8. Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Grant of Research support
9. sanofi-aventis: Grants & Research support
10. Genta: Scientific Advisory Board (as of March 6, 2007; since removed from web, but cached)
11. Biogen-Idec: Joint stock with spouse
12. Pfizer: Joint stock with spouse
13. Pharmion: Financial Conflict of Interest per Scher quote in MedPage
14. GPB Biotech: Financial Conflict of Interest per Scher quote in MedPage
15. PROQUEST INVESTMENTS: Consultant, Scientific Advisory Board; Limited Partner FINANCIAL interest
Go back and read #15 again…. He’s reported to be a “LIMITED PARTNER” in a Proquest partnership; doesn’t that suggest FINANCIAL investment?????
Join prostate cancer victim’s advocates at a Rally at the FDA in Washington, DC on Sept 18th @ 10 a.m. Info is at http://www.caretolive.com
Support prostate cancer patient’s access to Provenge and other safe treatments!
August 10th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Scher seemed to represent to the FDA via his Feb 2007 Application for a Waiver to serve on the Provenge Advisory Committee that he has 1 stock ownership (between $5,000 and $100,000) and 2 “Grants (Related)” each between $100,000 and $300,000.
Publicly available information shows these apparent Scher COIs (so far): [Particular attention is directed to items 1, 2 and—especially–15, but ALL—in totality– are important and telling, imo]
1. Novcea: STUDY CHAIR of DN-101; Grants & Research support
2. Medivation, Inc: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR MDV3100;
3. Innovive Pharmaceuticals: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
4. Infinity Pharmaceuticals: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
5. Cougar Biotechnology: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR; Advisory Board
6. Department of Defense: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR PC Clinical Trials-P1 and P2
7. Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultant, Grants & Research support
8. Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Grant of Research support
9. sanofi-aventis: Grants & Research support
10. Genta: Scientific Advisory Board (as of March 6, 2007; since removed from web, but cached)
11. Biogen-Idec: Joint stock with spouse
12. Pfizer: Joint stock with spouse
13. Pharmion: Financial Conflict of Interest per Scher quote in MedPage
14. GPB Biotech: Financial Conflict of Interest per Scher quote in MedPage
15. PROQUEST INVESTMENTS: Consultant, Scientific Advisory Board; Limited Partner FINANCIAL interest
Go back and read #15 again…. He’s reported to be a “LIMITED PARTNER” in a Proquest partnership; doesn’t that suggest FINANCIAL investment?????
December 16th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I would advise and patients with advanced PC or any family members of patients who have died of PC in the last 6 months to report Dr. Scher to the New York State Medical Board, http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/opmc/opmc.htm, for professional misconduct. If enough complaints are registered, his actions will be investigated and there is a good chance that he will lose his license to practice medicine.
Another option would be to check with a malpractice lawyer and see if his behavior would qualify as malpractice under New York law. It is clear to me that his actions have lead to harm to 1,000’s of patients.
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Hi I found this post while looking for investigator information. Then I came across this post Friday titled Dr. Howard Scher is SLIME! useful although there is a lot of different views out there. I have added you to my digg acct.
October 7th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
The Unreachable Availability of Provenge
Terminal patients are those who are not expected to live due to usually illness such as advanced cancer. If the patient has 6 months or less to live, those patients are considered terminally ill. Regardless, if a patient is terminal, they are without a cure or a tolerable treatment for their illness. Since such patients will likely die in a short period of time, treatment options, even if unproven, are often desired by such patients. This is understandable, because at such a severe stage of illness, such as prostate cancer, possible extension of their lives with comfort is worth it to them, regardless of lack of evidence of proof of whatever treatment that may be advantageous to them regarding these issues. The FDA, however, claims authority on the treatment options of such patients, although that administration has proven itself over the years to be rather inadequate with its frequent drug recalls and black box warnings, and they do these things only under pressure from the public, usually. So, the FDA may not be an ideal judge regarding such issues as treatment options for very sick patients.
Prostate cancer is rather frequent, with between 10 to 20 percent of men predicted to acquire the disease during their lifespan, resulting in about 30,000 deaths a year from this disease. Furthermore, there are different stages of prostate cancer, and the more severe the prostate cancer cases are, which is determined by such methods as bone scans and Gleason’s scores, the more difficult it is to treat such patients.
Yet innovation still exists in medicine. A few years ago, a small Biotechnology company called Dendreon was working on a conceptually new treatment for the worst prostate cancer patients, and this treatment therapy created by Dendreon was named Provenge. Provenge is the first immunotherapy biologic treatment for the progressed prostate cancer patients. Usually, these patients are unresponsive to usual treatment methods for prostate cancer, and are left with chemotherapy as their only treatment option at such a traumatic stage of prostate cancer. Understandably, most patients at this stage refuse treatment entirely, largely due to the brutal side effects of such chemotherapy treatments as Taxodere. The immunotherapy method developed by Dendreon requires the removal of white blood cells of the diseased patient and, after altered, are re-injected into this patient now designed to attack within the diseased body what is called PAP, which is on prostate cancer cells only. This treatment requires only three such injections in a period of six weeks. This results in life extension twice that of chemotherapy treated prostate cancer patients of this severity, and without the concerning side effects of chemotherapy. The medical community and survivors of prostate cancer were elated and waited with great anticipation for access to this treatment method.
Fortunately, as the years passed, Provenge, by 2007, had convinced others of its safety and efficacy in its benefit for severe prostate cancer patients. This caused great joy to such patients and their families. Perhaps greater elation was experienced by the caregivers and specialists of such a disease, such as Urologists and Oncologists who treat such patients. While Provenge was on fast track status at this time at the FDA, the FDA panel recommended with clarity the approval of Provenge based on its proven and substancial efficacy and safety demonstrated in its trials, as they announced in March of 2007. This was expected by many, as Provenge was given Fast Track status by the FDA because of the potential of this therapy for terminal patients.
Now for the bad news: With great shock and surprise, the FDA agency rejected the approval of this great treatment for very sick patients due to, they said, ‘lack of data’ in May of 2007. This contradicts their favorable opinion of Provenge weeks before delivering this terrible news. Especially when one considers the FDA Commissioner is a prostate cancer survival himself! Many found this ruling completely unbelievable.
Soon after this judgment was passed by the FDA, conflicts of interest were discovered by others. For example, a member of the FDA agency who was evaluating Provenge, Dr. Scher, was found to have a financial commitment to a future competitor of Provenge that was being produced by a company called Novacea, and this company had signed a co-promotion agreement with Schering to provide support for this similar prostate cancer drug treatment being developed by this company. Dr. Scher never disclosed this conflict during the approval process of Provenge. As it turns out, this anticipated prostate cancer drug made by Novacea was discovered to have serious flaws, and Schering pulled out of the agreement with Novacea. In addition to this incident and before May of 2007, baseless letters were anonymously delivered to the FDA stating negative qualities about Provenge that were without Merit and speculative claims about the treatment were fabricated in these letters, it is believed. Yet overall, the disapproval by the FDA of Provenge angered many, and a newly formed advocacy group called Care to Live filed a lawsuit against the FDA for their clear lack of protocol or knowledge about such complex treatment agents as provenge at the end of last year.
Terminal patients, I surmise, desire comfort during their progressive disease that has placed them in the last chapter of their lives, and certainly should have a right to choose any treatment that possibly could benefit them. Because most are willing to assume any risks of unapproved, yet potentially beneficial treatments such as Provenge. Because they have a terminal illness, possible benefits clearly take priority over safety issues of unapproved treatments for them. The controversy could be concluded by a terminal patient signing a waiver of some sort, perhaps, stating that they are responsible for the consequences of an unapproved treatment regimen such as Provenge. Yet the FDA, with reckless disregard and overt harshness, denied what likely was a great treatment method for these very ill patients, so the FDA ultimately harmed others more by not approving Provenge, or offering any exceptions with such cases, which in this situation seems most rational, considering the available data with Provenge.
The FDA does in fact presently have the ability to grant what is called conditional approval for such treatment methods as Provenge at this time, and why they have not remains completely unknown. What is known is that they are harming those they pledged to protect so long ago. So now the FDA appears to be a bought, corrupt, and incompetent administration without loyalty and dedication to the public and its health. This needs to be corrected in any way possible for the lives of others, regardless of thier present health state today. Because of the FDA’s flaws in the past regarding drugs taken off the market along with increasing black box warnings of other drugs, which happens often with both, the individual should be the deciding factor in such matters of deciding thier treatment course along with thier health care provider, and not an unreliable Administration.
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” — Aldous Huxley
Dan Abshear
November 8th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
giFwU4 fkjgh62vDfulv0s5FvSa
November 17th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I love this site Freesexmovies %-D