This email from "MR" to Ratain was one of the more entertaining he received:
"Hello Dr. Ratain: I am hoping that AF
took your comments regarding perifosine out of context. You should demand an immediate retraction, if he did manipulate your conversation. It is totally out of line for a medical doctor, such as you, involved in medical research to be associating or conversing with such an individual. I am filing a complaint with the SEC about stock manipulation and with your local medical board regarding your lack of ethics and better judgment. You should know better to have any interaction with any financial blogger from
TheStreet. It is my goal to have you investigated by the SEC for possible misconduct. Where is your better judgment?"
Sorry to burst the bubble folks, but none of Ratain's comments regarding perifosine were taken out of context or manipulated. I asked him again Tuesday, just to make sure.
Along the same lines, but more polite, "Dean" asks Ratain, "Can you please advise if you have received any consideration, financial or otherwise, in relation to the article that was written about Keryx and
(AEZS - Get Report) last week?"
Ratain responded to Dean: "I have no financial interest. My relationship with Mr. Feuerstein
that's me, again
is strictly academic, and emanates from a shared interest in clinical trial design. In that sense, the perifosine phase 2 trial was flawed."
That's a nice segue into a discussion of the published results from a phase II study of perifosine in colon cancer. Many of you wanted to know whether we considered this study -- which purports to demonstrate a survival benefit favoring perifosine over placebo -- into our analysis. Keryx and its supporters believe data from the phase II study bolster the chances for perifosine's success in the ongoing phase III study.