This is a potentially important story for patients taking this or other drugs. It reports trial results and awards and the opinions of both sides on the merits of the claims and case. It is a shame the blog author didn't have a quote from the pharmaceutical compay but he does try to provide some balance lacking that. Note that the heavily updated Bloomberg story (linked) manages to get some quotes from the company and a supporting spokesperson.

This story is written in a journalistic style, but it is very biased reporting. Beginning with the second sentence, the story abandons objectivity by suggesting that a verdict in a civil trial is "proof." Also, the story quotes the plaintiff's lawyer directly, but has no direct quotes from anyone representing Wyeth (although it does attribute statements to Wyeth).

This is an important story and it is not obvious why it did not receive more attention except to observe that some mainstream publications play follow the leader in promoting fluff rather than stories that maybe critical of their advertisers. While the Cancer Blog got it right, I would have preferred to see links to news stories confirming the trial's outcome in the Cancer Blog report. The Cancer Blog, however, correctly reported the outcome whereas law.com got it inexplicably wrong at this link http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1171533777484. Other links support the reporting of what the Cancer Blog reports, such as http://www.news-medical.net/?id=22074 and ... More »