Sir Richard Peto takes umbrage at the idea that he might skew a statistical analysis to benefit a drugmaker. The eminent Oxford statistician, as you know, recently weighed in on a study that seemed to link the Merck/Schering-Plough cholesterol med Vytorin with an increase in cancer cases and deaths. Peto concluded [1] that the apparent risk was a statistical anomaly, a freak of chance.

Now, Peto is defending that conclusion against the opinions of other experts [2] and questions from the U.S. Congress [3]. In a letter to Reps. John Dingell and Bart Stupak, who are investigating the Vytorin controversy [4], Peto asserted that "any competent trial statistician" would agree with his analysis. Suggestions that he might bias his work in favor of Merck and Schering-Plough are absolutely wrong: They don't pay his salary and had no impact on his analysis of the trial data.

Apparently, Peto takes a dim view of the competency of the New England Journal of Medicine and its experts. Two NEJM editorials recently critiqued Peto's analysis [5], saying that an increased risk of cancer death in Vytorin patients can't be ruled out. Peto hasn't specifically addressed their conclusions--yet.

- read the Forbes story [6]
- check out the Wall Street Journal Health Blog post [7]

Related Articles:
Vytorin debate heats up ESC [8]
Merck, Schering-Plough stocks take a dive [9]
FDA probes Vytorin cancer risk
[10]Letter tries to quell Vytorin worries [11]
Analyst gloomy on Merck trends [12]