Re: Question For Dr. Pilcher

[Guest guest]

As I have been in all of my posts and e-mails to members of this

group and the group in total, I will answer all questions completely

up front and honestly. I appreciate all of your concerns and

skepticism regarding anything from companies. Obviously there have

been many before us claiming to have efficacy but without effect in

the general population following use. I understand why at this point

in time you cannot separate Cutanix from that group. But I do take a

huge exception to your lumping us in with those that are morally

corrupt. ly, you know nothing about me or anyone else that works

for the company. Be careful about making blanket statements about a

company that has yet to prove itself to the general public.

In answer to your direct question- Cutanix contracted with Dr.

Draelos' organization, Dermatology Consulting Services, to perform

each of our three clinical studies. In fact, we have contracted with

many other organizations just as we have with DCS- including Calvert

Preclinical Testing to determine if our lotion would sensitize or

irritate. Do you think we have some immoral objective by paying them

to perform our pre-clinical safety studies? To suggest that if we

were to obtain negative data we would immediately drop DCS is

preposterous. Look at the list of clients DCS performs clinical

studies for and you'll see that she has credentials that back her up.

If we obtained negative clinical results we would drop that lead

compound and move on to the next.

In short- Why would we want to launch a product that didn't work?

Keep in mind that this will be our only product offering, not one of

100s as is the case for big pharma.

As for your last point- nothing will convince you except your

personal experience with the product. I just hope you will give us a

chance.

> I saw no implication in Marjorie's posts that Dr. Draelos was

directly

> bribed into fraud, but was she not paid by your company to conduct

the

> " independent " study? I suspect you would be in no hurry to use her

> again if her findings were less than favourable.

>

> I'm not sure if Marjorie, as an emergency clinician, has much direct

> contact with pharmaceutical companies trying to sell her their

> products, but I assure you I have to deal with them daily. All of

> their representatives come armed to the teeth with " independent "

> research (financed by them) positively guaranteeing safety and

> efficacy. With an occasional exception, all the products turn out to

> be utterly useless, and in some cases dangerous.

>

> Forgive us our scepticism Dr. Pilcher, but you are part of an

industry

> that has proven itself to be morally corrupt. Your job is to sell

> product. You are not governed by a strict code of professional

ethics,

> as Marjorie and myself are. It is OUR job to protect patients from

> misleading research (not easy in these days of direct marketing to

the

> consumer by drug companies), and it appears to me that Marjorie is

> doing an excellent job of it.

>

> Like her, I would love to find that you have a safe and effective

> product. The point is: Nothing we have read so far convinces us!

[Guest guest]

I really don't need to " be careful " about any of my statements Dr.

Pilcher. I stated that your company is part of an industry that has

proven itself morally corrupt and I think that is self-evident.

I have no doubt that there are honourable used car salesmen out there

too, but I'm not sure that's justification for trusting everything

they tell me!

And to Marjorie: I'm really not naive enough to believe that those of

us that can have the ability to practice our professions taken away by

a board of our colleagues because of a breech of ethics are free from

dishonesty. In fact, I believe physicians have to face much more

temptation from this than veterinarians because they deal with 3rd

party payment so often. I simply meant that the Dr. Pilcher's job, at

root, is to sell product and that there was no code of ethics

governing his industry.

[Guest guest]

To Shane and all the others who feel my posts were too

confrontational, I make no apology whatsoever. The implication from

Dr. Pilcher's posts is that this study may be flawed, but that it was

the best his company could afford and that a poor investigation is

better than none at all.

I could not disagree more. If a product is introduced as a cosmetic

that trial and error is just fine, but if it is presented in a

scientific manner, and that science is poor, then it should not go

unchallenged.

This is no small philosophical detail. Good science is the pillar of

western society and the reason why ALL of the non-science based

nations have been left in the dust.

[Guest guest]

To Shane and all the others who feel my posts were too

confrontational, I make no apology whatsoever. The implication from

Dr. Pilcher's posts is that this study may be flawed, but that it was

the best his company could afford and that a poor investigation is

better than none at all.

I could not disagree more. If a product is introduced as a cosmetic

that trial and error is just fine, but if it is presented in a

scientific manner, and that science is poor, then it should not go

unchallenged.

This is no small philosophical detail. Good science is the pillar of

western society and the reason why ALL of the non-science based

nations have been left in the dust.