Have a Good NEWS

These internal documents describe the trial candidly as a marketing device. "Steps is the best tool we have for Neurontin and we should be using it wherever we can" says one memo. These discussions weren't about the results: they were written during the trial.

What 's more, although the company has two papers steps on whether the drug was even published any good, internally ran analysis examines their actual outcome of interest: whether steps prescribed investigators more gabapentin thereafter (38% more recipes, and at higher cans as well). As a window into their priorities, such analysis - were performed before study results were disseminated - \ the attempt's true purpose. They were never published.

Nobody knows how common these seeding trials. You can guess, but you 'd never get it used to be a libel lawsuit lawyer: it' s only leaks and lawsuits that we can be safe.

None of this is illegal. But it is unethical, with serious implications about informed consent. Patients consented to participate and believe that this study was on the risks and benefits of the drug. In fact, there was a study of the marketing advantages of a seeding trial. Does this matter? Well, it's the principle of consent, which is important. But this isn 'ta perfect drug: of 2759 patients died 11, 73 had serious adverse events, and 997 had side effects. Gabapentin isn 't murderous, but that was more serious than to try a new kind of toilet paper.

On top of that, finally, while doctors were the real subjects of the experiment, they gave no consent to participate. Although it 's difficult to pity, as you imagine her vain, insightless, hollow boast. "Yeah, we 're with some really great results with gabapentin. Did I tell you I' m an investigator in this process? It 's fascinating work that we' re making ..."

• This article was published on 2 Changed in July 2011. The original stated that the analysis in the Annals of Internal Medicine. This has been corrected.