Menlo Park doctor under fire for head-lice treatment disclosure
I’d like to make my opinion known to those of you who will read the attached article about Dr. Pearlman’s head lice cure and think: “Gee…it doesn’t seem so ethically troubling to me.” It does to me. No, not troubling, disgraceful. I read the 2004 Pediatrics article in which Dr. Pearlman described his clinical trial results. He provides the ingredient list of “Nuvo” (aka Cetaphil Cleanser) but never mentions that the compound is already available over the counter nor the trade name of the formulation. And he had the gall to charge clinical-trial subjects to participate in the testing of his regimen. I don’t care what his motivations were, this is not the way to conduct clinical trials. It is against all tenets of proper clinical research to fool trial participants, journal editors and the general public in this way.
And while I’m on my soapbox, perhaps I’ll reach the ears of other wily entrepreneurial clinical researchers with this admonition: Don’t think for a second that you personally know how to secure patent rights for, test or market your own proprietary new molecular entity, formulation or therapeutic method of use. In all likelihood, you don’t, just as Dr. Pearlman did not. I don’t care how many trials you have participated in as an investigator, how many CME talks you’ve given or how much of your annual compensation derives from the industry. Unless you have broad inner-industry experience yourself or you have secured the services of someone who has to guide you through process, you will almost certainly not succeed.
