Saturday, November 21, 2009

From Twitter 11-20-2009

  • 09:14:06: Interesting story from ePharm5: "FDA issues warning letters to shifty online pharmacies": #fdasm
  • 10:00:44: JUST ADDED ON HTTP://WWW.FDASM.COM: New feature 2 SUBMIT QUESTIONS 4 the FDA; will be aggregated & organized & sent to FDA by 12/1 #fdasm
  • 10:36:40: New Study (10/27/09) reveals "Today’s Seniors and Boomers Rival Younger Generations in Online Activities":
  • 10:54:49: HAHA! That's so cool! RT @EileenOBrien: @skypen Great mention of http://fdasm in BusinessWeek #fdasm
  • 11:21:23: : ) RT @eyeonfda: Me and my new BFF @skypen in BusinessWeek - RT @MarianCutler: Go @skypen amd @eyeonfda!!! #fdasm
  • 11:50:06: RE: #FDASM ARTICLES - If I've missed something or made a mistake, feel free to make ADDITIONS/CORRECTIONS here:
  • 11:53:03: THANK YOU! RT @agDesignNetwork: @skypen You did great (potentially revolutionized how info is handled by conferences)! #FDAsm
  • 12:08:48: Discovered a new BLOG by Olivier Laurent, writes abt "The Empowered Patient", topics range from social media 2 health 2.0:
  • 12:29:01: Too kind. Just following my heart :)RT @bradatpharma Thank you for ur guidance w/the #fdasm community. Transparency is the key to success :)
  • 12:40:09: @bradatpharma : tech solution for #FDASM logo? Confused. BTW, if someone wants to re-design the logo I created, I say HELL YEAH! I suck :)
  • 12:41:56: @bradatpharma OH, you mean like the "RXRISK" idea that was presented -- a universal badge of transparency?
  • 13:29:16: THANKS 4 SHARING! @emilydownward: "Edelman report on FDA Hearing w/recommendations 4 how 2 engage online now" #fdasm
  • 14:21:42: Great summaries & very sound advise in this report from Edelman (@emilydownward) re: FDA, Internet & Social Media #fdasm
  • 14:27:45: THANKS! Took forever 2 aggregate & I know it's missing a ton! @jbselz: gr8 collection of articles re: FDA hearings: #fdasm
  • 15:08:40: WOOHOO! Seesmic launches twitter client for the #droid! Can't stand Twitdroid!
  • 15:12:23: Some gr8 FDA VIDEOS in there from @PixelsandPills too! @mmyerspalio: Gr8 collection of articles re: FDA hearings: #fdasm
  • 16:42:46: Bob Ehrlich from DTC Perspectives writes about the FDA Hearings in his newsletter, "The FDA Internet Dilemma": #fdasm
  • 21:52:46: No response to what?
  • 22:28:04: @niceguy_com hey bud, I did respond, but since you don't "follow" me (which I just realized) then the DM never reached u. Again, thank u :)

Tweets copied by

buzz this

Friday, November 20, 2009

The FDA Internet Dilemma

Source: DTC Perspectives eNewsletter
(Issue 383, November 20, 2009)
Written by: Bob Ehrlich, Chairman DTC Perspectives, Inc.

The 2 day hearings held last week aired all the issues related to drug marketing over the Internet. It is ridiculous that the FDA is using a promotional code written prior to the existence of web search. They know it is ridiculous and are trying to find a way to incorporate the Internet in a way that meets the regulations and satisfies industry.

That being said, Congress is not going to be overly accommodating in making DTC easier. This is not an environment where being kind to drug companies is in fashion. Most Democrats want to reduce use of brand name drugs not increase their exposure. In fact, most Democrats would support more restrictions on DTC if they could pass the free speech test.

In the context of runaway health costs and a likely cumbersome, complex reform structure; making things easier for drug companies will have a low priority. Just this week drug companies were vilified for raising prices about 9% this year with inflation at 1%. Drug companies say these price increases were justified by the increased cost of R&D. Critics say they are doing this in advance of health care reform to set a higher base for negotiations. In any case this price rise is sure to inflame critics in Congress.

FDA is in a tough spot. They know the Internet has a wealth of tools to educate potential Rx users. They know consumers will not see a one line mention of a drug and its indication and run to get an Rx without further investigation. They know artificial restriction of web search ads makes it harder for consumers to get educated.

Despite all this it will be hard for them to do anything that appears to be conciliatory to the drug companies.

What is likely is a long process of consideration of alternatives with market research testing to validate alternatives. FDA moves slowly and any changes will be glacial. Before FDA makes changes they will see what the final health reform bill requires on drug promotion. They are under enormous political pressure to be tougher on advertising and have new leadership that is supportive of that increased vigilance.

The net is hearings were useful to air the issues and propose alternatives. The reality is Internet media companies should not expect timely resolution. For those of you interested in the individual presentations and analysis from the hearings check our website. I am not expecting anything positive in terms of pragmatic solutions for at least a year.

buzz this

77 Percent of Senior Citizens Shop Online

Today’s Seniors and Boomers Rival Younger Generations in Online Activities

Source: CTAM

(Alexandria, VA – October 27, 2009) Seniors aged 65 and older (also referred to as “Matures”) have made the Internet an integral part of their everyday lives. In a recent study, 77 percent report that they shop online. In fact, Matures lead all other generational groups when it comes to this online activity. They regularly use email (94 percent), go to the Internet to look up health and medical information (71 percent), read news (70 percent), and manage their finances and banking (59 percent). Matures also turn to the Internet for gaming, approximately half (47 percent) of online Matures regularly play free online games.

Boomers (ages 45 – 64) are heavy online users as well, with 93 percent using email and 71 percent shopping online. Other regular online activities of Boomers are going to the Internet to read news (73 percent), gather information (67 percent) and pay bills (66 percent). Three out of ten (30 percent) regularly watch videos online, and 39 percent regularly go to networking Web sites, forums, message boards and chat rooms.
These findings come from the CTAM Pulse report that includes data from the Life Stages & Life Styles: Turning General Differences Into Media Opportunities, and analyzes four generational groups.

“The technology adoption behaviors of the younger generations is studied frequently and their impact on advertising and marketing is widely known.” said CTAM President and CEO Char Beales. “But this study is unique in that it reveals opportunity among the Boomers and Matures, who have significant purchasing power, are active online and more comfortable with technology than often reported.”

Boomers are tech-savvy and just as likely as the younger generations to own a digital camera, DVD player and cell phone. While younger generations are more likely to send and receive text messages, 92 percent of Millennials (18 – 29), and 76 percent Gen Xers (30 – 44); half of all Boomers (48 percent) text, and a surprising 18 percent of Matures engage in this activity. Although all groups are high subscribers to cable TV service, the youngest generation – Millennials (61 percent), is the highest group to subscribe to cable TV service.

This CTAM research was partnered with BoomerEyes, a division of C&R Research and is based on a total of 1,500 online interviews from June 3 through June 14, 2009.


CTAM, the Cable & Telecommunications Association for Marketing, is dedicated to helping the cable business grow. As a non-profit professional association, CTAM provides consumer research, case studies, topical publications, conferences and the CTAM SmartBrief to more than 4,500 individual members. On behalf of its 90 corporate members, the organization leads the Advanced Cable Solutions Consortium and facilitates national cooperative marketing efforts, including the Cable Mover Hotline™ and the Cable Means Business initiative. For more information, go to CTAM is also on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

Contacts: Diana Cronan, CTAM, Director, Communications and Media Relations, 703.837.6575,

Melissa Lee, CTAM, Communications Specialist, 703.837.6577,
buzz this

FDA issues warning letters to shifty online pharmacies

Source: ePharm5

The FDA said it has completed a coordinated, weeklong, international effort, called the International Internet Week of Action, which aims to curb illegal actions involving medical products. During the effort, the FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations, in conjunction with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Enforcement, targeted 136 Web sites that appeared to be engaged in the illegal sale of unapproved or misbranded drugs to U.S. consumers. None of the Web sites are for pharmacies in the United States or Canada. The FDA issued 22 warning letters to the operators of these Web sites and notified Internet service providers and domain name registrars that the Web sites were selling products in violation of U.S. law.
buzz this

From Twitter 11-19-2009

Tweets copied by

buzz this

Thursday, November 19, 2009

From Twitter 11-18-2009

  • 02:04:22: Now THIS passionately anti-pharma editorial from Mercury News is worth debating: (via @jackbilson3) #fdasm
  • 02:35:24: @kevinclauson's slideshare preso "How Facebook and Twitter are Changing Healthcare" (via @NatBourre)
  • 02:38:30: NICE. @dberkowitz's post: "100 Ways To Measure Social Media": (via @jonmrich)
  • 08:24:42: @Digitas_Health @vppharam @mattd19 thank you guys for the #bdi tweets. Good to gear your takeaways from# fdasm. make sure to include hashtag
  • 08:53:18: Great-- send me a logo and link! RT @naltsconsulting: @skypen: I want to join the movement at #fdasm
  • 08:54:35: Thank you Ellen for the RTs and the coverage of #bdi keep up the great work! #fdasm
  • 08:58:37: @MarianCutler hence the need 4 guidance re:"how to do it right", both ethically & w/in regulations. The latter being the challenge #fdasm
  • 09:32:39: To those @ #BDI recapping #fdasm, pls share decks. I will cr8 a new sprdsht on; post decks 2 slideshare or send 2 me & I will post
  • 09:35:29: #fdasm was a collaborative effort! @andrewspong: I take no credit @LucieSmith: Gr8 overview of FDA hearings on soc med:
  • 11:37:03: UPDATED Just "one click" to watch day 1 or day 2 of the FDA Public Hearings #fdasm
  • 11:39:44: NICE! RT @jonmrich: "3 Things I Learned at the FDA Social Media Hearings & 3 I Wish I Had" #fdasm
  • 11:47:02: @jonmrich Thank you 4 sharing your #BDI deck w/your #FDASM perspectives with everyone , and also 4 posting on
  • 11:54:23: Thank you for the RTs! @ellenhoenig @PrforPharma re: updated w/direct link to #fdasm webcasts
  • 12:59:52: As hard is it is 4 me 2 share ANOTHER neg POV on Pharma re: regs & ads, here is an LA Times piece worth debating: #fdasm
  • 16:33:20: BREAKING NEWS: Google releases new primary research study: "CONNECTING WITH PHYSICIANS ONLINE": #fdasm #hcsm
  • 16:34:33: GREAT. Pls send me a logo and link :) RT @hgazay: @skypen: I want to join the movement at #fdasm
  • 16:50:27: In case you missed it, Google just released a new research study on how physicians use the Internet -- Good stuff!

Tweets copied by

buzz this

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

NEW GOOGLE STUDY: Connecting with Physicians Online

Today Google released a new primary research study titled: "Connecting with Physicians Online: Searching for Answers".

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate "how physicians use the internet and search in their clinical practices." The study was conducted between May 20, 2009 - June 8, 2009, and involved 411 physicians (PCP/GP, Endo, Cardio and Psych). Each physician was asked to complete an online survey, including embedded internet search exercises.

There is some great new data in this study that once again demonstrates the high degree in which the Internet is a critical and integral part of the physician's practice. Enjoy!

buzz this

The danger of marketing prescription drugs online

[The views expressed in this column do not reflect the views of the host of this blog (Fabio Gratton), but I believe they represent views held by more than a few and are worth discussing and debating -- THAT is the reason they are posted here. Please feel free to comment, or share your POV via twitter using hashtag #fdasm; or comment directly on this post. Thank you.]

If pharmaceutical companies are allowed to send abbreviated pitches, they'll emphasize the benefits of their medications and send consumers elsewhere to find out the risks.

By David Lazarus
November 18, 2009

Google, Yahoo and the pharmaceutical industry are pushing to change how prescription drugs are hawked online. That's not a bad thing necessarily.

The danger is that all the happy, sunny marketing pitches could end up front and center on the Web and on Twitter, while all the nasty, scary side effects are relegated to cyber-ghettos that consumers never see.

"There's no question that the pharmaceutical industry would love to send out abbreviated versions of ads that leave out the scary stuff," said Sidney Wolfe, director of health research for the advocacy group Public Citizen. "But if you talk only about the benefits of a drug and send people somewhere else for the risks, you'll get a real distorted view of what these drugs do."

The Food and Drug Administration started tackling this thorny issue last week when it invited leading Web companies and pharmaceutical interests to testify about what they'd like to see in a brave new world of digital drug ads.

As it is now, a Google search for, say, "high blood pressure" returns more than 40 million listings. But at the top, over a shaded background, are links to websites such as ManageBloodPressure .com and BloodPressureChol

These are sponsored results, although who paid Google to put them there is unclear. Nor is it clear that each link will take you to a website for a prescription drug.

Current FDA rules require both the benefits and risks of a drug to be included in any print ad or commercial. But what about online, where a sponsored search result or corporate tweet may have only a handful of words?

"The drug companies make a legitimate point in saying that the Internet is different from print and TV," said Steven Findlay, senior health policy analyst at Consumers Union. "The burden is on the FDA to think this whole thing through very carefully."

We're still months away from a possible new rule for online drug ads. But most interested parties agree that some sort of change is coming down the pike.

"We need more transparency," said David Zinman, vice president of display advertising for Yahoo Inc. "You can't just take the same rules from print and TV and put them online.

"The goal," he said, "isn't just to help advertisers. It's also to help consumers."

The stakes are high. Ever since the FDA ruled in 1997 that drug makers could pitch their prescription wares directly to consumers, the pharmaceutical industry has spent billions of dollars annually persuading people to ask their doctors about all manner of high-priced, name-brand remedies.

Print ads for prescription drugs typically include pages of fine print spelling out potential hazards. TV and radio commercials usually end with rushed recitations of all the bad stuff.

It's trickier online. A company-sponsored search result, a corporate tweet or a postage-stamp-size display ad lacks the room for all that information.

So drug makers skirt the problem by advertising a condition or a symptom, and not revealing the name of the related pill until a Web user clicks on the link. The fine print doesn't have to be unleashed until the name of the drug actually appears.

Eric Obenzinger, a Google Inc. spokesman, said new rules are needed that would allow drug makers to communicate more clearly through searches and tweets.

"There's about 4 billion searches per year for health conditions," Obenzinger said. "It's important that people get good information."

That's the thing. One lesson newspapers and other media companies have learned is that Internet users seldom click online ads.

So let's say the FDA allows drugs to be pitched online without all the risks being immediately spelled out. Let's say the agency allows online ads, search results and tweets to include a link to all that dark and depressing stuff.

Would anyone go there?

My hunch is no, which would probably be just fine with the pharmaceutical industry, but would be a significant setback for ensuring that consumers are well-informed about a drug before they start pestering their doctors for a taste.

My hunch is that people will receive a tweet from, say, Sepracor Inc. letting them know -- in 140 characters or less -- that Lunesta will help them get a good night's sleep.

They won't click the link that reveals using Lunesta could cause "aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations and confusion," or that the risk of suicide among depressed people may increase, or that allergic reactions "such as swelling of the tongue and throat" may be fatal.

Jeffrey Francer, assistant general counsel for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an industry group, said he believes people will click on that link, and will have instant access to "lots and lots of information about benefits and risks."

"What we're trying to do is think creatively about how healthcare companies can lead people to comprehensive information," Francer said. "We're trying to get people to FDA-regulated information."

That's another thing. If drug companies start blitzing consumers with online ads, sponsored search results and marketing tweets, how will federal officials keep up with the tsunami of salesmanship?

Clearly we're going to need an entirely new FDA division dedicated solely to surfing the Web and policing all that digital content -- and that won't be cheap.

It's still early enough in the game that most of these issues hopefully will be tackled before the FDA comes to any conclusions. And it's constructive that all concerned seem to be trying to come up with workable solutions.

For example, Google's Obenzinger showed me the company's idea for presenting both benefits and risks of drugs in sponsored search results.

They've done a pretty good job, although I can't help but notice that the benefits are in dark print while the risks are in lighter gray print.

It will be up to federal officials to strike the right balance between digital commerce and keeping people safe. All too often, commerce tends to come out on top.

That's shouldn't be the case this time. Not with potentially millions of lives at stake.

David Lazarus' column runs Wednesdays and Sundays. Send your tips or feedback to
buzz this

From Twitter 11-17-2009

  • 09:03:47: Thank you - fixed on Apparently wrong link went out yesterday. @gradontripp: link to the #fdasm archive is
  • 09:05:36: @gradontripp : that's not to say the video is playing any better than it was yesterday -- which it isn't. Have you had any luck?
  • 09:45:05: @gradontripp thank you. Updated WEBCAST links on until FDA fixes the bug. Check it out. Please RT.
  • 09:58:00: @gradontripp did u clear your cache?
  • 10:49:03: Added 2 WWW.FDASM.COM this morning: Link 2 #BDI conference 11/18 where experts re-cap #FDASM meetings & links to hearing webcast archives
  • 12:05:27: On an #fdasm call with @pharmaguy, discussing takeaways from last week's hearings.
  • 12:21:46: RT @Jeff_Greene My latest post RT @healtheddigital: What we didn't learn at the FDA social media hearings: #fdasm
  • 13:56:51: Webcast archive IS avail. Chk out RT @BernardF @bradeinars I think audio of #fdasm hearings should b provided.
  • 15:40:04: Great blog post by Sally Church (@MaverickNY) regarding use of social media for clinical trial recruitment: #fdasm
  • 16:00:39: @roskadigital YAZ-surprised it doesn't link 2 a safety statement like the 1 on the bottom home, instead of the HCP PI. #fdasm
  • 17:54:00: REMINDER: For those who r having issues accessing the FDA Hearing webcasts, the links on work: #fdasm
  • 20:55:10: WELCOME! Just me a logo or link :) RT @ThinkingPharma: @skypen: i want to join the movement at
  • 21:24:34: @MarianCutler : FDA will never regulate Wikipedia, unless it's in relation to pharma companies publishing on it, which of course, would be.
  • 21:40:07: @eyeonfda poses question in post: Did we see a new FDA emerge, or is this the new adventure for the same old FDA? #fdasm
  • 23:53:40: #FDASM recap from @spectrumscience: (via @aurorahealthpr):
  • 23:55:16: Thanks for mentioning in your post -- great recap btw! #fdasm

Tweets copied by

buzz this

Mercury News: Just say no to online drug ads

[The views expressed in this article do not reflect the views of the host of this blog (Fabio Gratton), but I believe they represent views held by more than a few and are worth discussing and debating -- THAT is the reason they are posted here. Please feel free to comment, or share your POV via twitter using hashtag #fdasm; or comment directly on this post. Thank you.]

Author: Chris O'Brien (twitter: @sjcobrien)
Source: Mercury News

Twelve years after a change in rules allowed drug companies to bombard our televisions with prescription drug ads, I still get angry every time one of these noxious commercials appears. No matter what the drug industry claims about their educational value, these spots are nothing more than the handiwork of snake oil salesmen pitching their potions to masses of people wholly unqualified to make informed decisions about such products.

Now the people who brought this sickening circus of misinformation to our TVs want to do the same for our online and social media experiences — and companies that I normally admire, like Google and Yahoo, are joining this unholy alliance in a cynical ploy to make a few extra bucks.
Since the flood of TV drug ads began in 1997, pharmaceutical companies have used these spots to pump up sales of prescription drugs by stoking our anxieties over the state of our health. Big Pharma spends billions each year on "direct-to-consumer" marketing, with the biggest chunk going to TV, where we now watch on average 16 hours of these ads every year.

The companies would have you believe they're helpfully educating the consumer about various diseases and encouraging them to visit their doctors.

Phooey. There is plenty of research that demonstrates how these sales tactics have contributed to the rising cost of health care, with little evident impact on improving patients' health. A 2006 study by the U.S. General

Accounting Office found that sales of a drug increased $2 for every $1 spent on advertising. A 2004 survey by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found that 65 percent of physicians felt consumer ads confused patients about the risks and benefits of such drugs, while 75 percent felt the ads led "patients to think that the drug works better than it does."

At a time when we're trying to reform the national health care system, and rein in costs, the last thing we need to do is to make it easier for drug companies to distort our health care choices. And yet, last week a shameless parade of pharmaceutical companies, advertising firms and Web companies spoke during a two-day hearing to petition the FDA to relax the rules for online drug ads, insisting they're just here to help consumers become better informed.

On its policy blog, Google says it shares the FDA's "goal of better understanding how to promote medical products online in a non-misleading and balanced manner."

"We need to get some adjustment to the way the medium is used because it's very different from print and broadcast — that's the main challenge," Yahoo Vice President David Zinman told The Associated Press.

What Google and Yahoo really want is a bigger piece of that $4.3 billion the pharmaceutical industry spent last year marketing their treatments, up from the $1.1 billion spent in 1997. Sadly for the Googles and Yahoos of this world, only 4.3 percent of those ad dollars go toward online advertising.

Those online ad dollars became even more elusive after the FDA took a bold step to protect consumers. The agency sent letters to 14 drug companies saying their search-based ads had to include relevant risk information or come down.

Ah, those pesky risk disclosures. The obligation to disclose is the reason all the happy talk of TV drug ads is followed by a litany of possible side effects and risks. The problem is that in those itty-bitty Google search ads, or a tweet, or a Facebook status update, there's just not enough room to stuff in those inconvenient warnings about diarrhea, vomiting, hallucinations — or a second head growing out of your back.

After months of badgering, the coalition of drug advertisers persuaded the FDA to hold hearings late last week to "clarify" the rules. The list of speakers was dominated by pharmaceutical, Web and advertising companies, with a handful of consumer advocates thrown in for good show.
The Snake Oil 2.0 allies proposed several versions of new online ads.

A Google ad includes one whole extra line stating some of the risks with a link to the full disclosures. Pharmaceutical trade groups proposed adding some kind of FDA seal of approval to online ads and tweets.

Marcia Angell, a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, once famously said of drug companies and their ads: "They are no more in the business of educating the public than a beer company is in the business of educating people about alcoholism."

Despite the moaning from the drug corner, our health takes precedence over someone's desire to sell more stuff or pocket a few ad dollars. The FDA needs to stop this in its tracks.
Their message to Google and Yahoo should be a simple one: Just say no to expanding online drug ads.
buzz this

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

From Twitter 11-16-2009

  • 13:39:21: SHARE & COLLABORATE: Add links 2 #FDASM re-caps/blogs/articles here:; Add links 2 ur presos here:
  • 13:42:11: "Power to the e-Patient" @TobyDiva's key takeaways from FDA Hearingson Internet & Social Media: #fdasm
  • 13:47:14: NPR: "Patients Turn To Online Community For Help Healing": (via @Blippvert) #fdasm
  • 13:50:52: Thank you for the "special note of thanks"! :) @ddwebster @heldincontempt @roskadigital for setting up the #FDASM website
  • 13:52:18: Folks, in case you are wondering, the "#FDASM Movement" is not coming to an end, but just getting started. Ideas welcome.
  • 13:54:55: And here is link to 7,731 TWEETS since 11/1: @MediGrail @ninad70: Missed #fdasm? Transcript 2 days:
  • 13:57:07: Mark Senak (@eyeonFDA) interviews Lilly's Michele Sharp regarding FDA Hearings (via rm90526) #fdasm
  • 13:59:23: Zen (@accelmed) -- Thank you for sharing your innovation presentation from the FDA hearings on: #fdasm
  • 14:01:32: when someone figures WAVE out, let me know too. RT @shwen: @bradatpharma Not ignoring... sorry. When u figure it out - I'll wave back :-)
  • 15:12:56: @jonmrich : does the link go somewhere?
  • 15:33:38: NEW: LINK 2 ARCHIVED WEBCASTS OF FDA HEARINGS NOW POSTED ON HTTP://WWW.FDASM.COM, courtesy @jonmrich & @healthcare3dot0 #fdasm
  • 15:35:36: Very impressed that FDA would make webcasts available so soon! However, anyone else experiencing technical difficulties?
  • 15:43:00: Great! Pls send me a logo/link :)RT @ConsensusBoston: @skypen: I want to join the movement at #fdasm
  • 15:47:08: @rilescat -- added myself -- thank you -- but received the following error:
  • 16:03:48: @engageinhealth I haven't figured out GOOGLE WAVE either 2 be honest. Is it just me or is it a bit confusing? #fdasm
  • 16:06:27: Re-posted working link on, but video not playing :( @ShebaMuturi: Can't open this link @jonmrich (FDA archived webcast) #fdasm
  • 21:09:40: Please send me your logo and link so that I can add u :)RT @kelconnors: @skypen I want to join the movement at #fdasm

Tweets copied by

buzz this

Monday, November 16, 2009

From Twitter 11-15-2009

  • 12:35:13: @rawarrior re day 1 #fdasm video: the video being webcast is not yet available. Best bet is 2 check out agenda, then see if decks r avail.
  • 16:52:26: RT @JNJComm #FDASM Perspectives on the FDA's hearing on social media over at JNJBTW.
  • 19:43:16: RT @mkmackey @ekivemark Check out stream for @skypen for #fdasm updates #hcsm

Tweets copied by

buzz this

Sunday, November 15, 2009

From Twitter 11-14-2009

Tweets copied by

buzz this